The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The Defendant asserted that the public prosecution was dismissed following the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unconstitutional sentencing). The Defendant agreed with the victim G, and the victim G expressed his/her intention not to punish.

In this regard, the judgment of dismissal of the public prosecution should have been pronounced in the court below.

In fact, the Defendant alleged the misunderstanding of facts by cutting down the balp of the victim E, and did not support the victim E’s reciting and legs on several occasions.

All of the CCTVs were deleted by the victims, and the defendant unilaterally extracted from the victims and submitted as evidence.

The defense argument of a political party is that the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate defense, because he or she saws the victim E with a passive appearance of drinking towards the victim E or pusheds the victim's G in order to unilaterally face a drinking face from the victim E in excess of 80 km of body weight and to oppose it.

The punishment of the lower court (the amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

The relevant legal principles are as follows with respect to the determination of dismissal of public prosecution following the expression of non-existence of punishment.

In a case which cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed intention of the victim, the withdrawal of the wish for the punishment may be made before the judgment of the first instance is rendered, and any person who has withdrawn the wishing for the punishment cannot again express his/her wishing for the punishment (Article 232(3), (1), and (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). In the case of a crime of non-violation of intention, the victim expressed his/her wish not to prosecute or withdrawn his/her wishing for the punishment.

In order for recognition, the victim’s true intent should be expressed in a way that is clear and reliable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do1809, Jun. 15, 2001; 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). According to the record, the following facts are recognized:

Defendant

The victims E and the father of the above E.