In a case where the Defendant, an automobile driver, was prosecuted for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents because he injured Party A by his occupational negligence, the case affirming the judgment below that, even if the father of an adult Gap, who was in an unidentified state, expressed his wish not to punish the Defendant, such an expression of intent has no validity under the Litigation Act

Article 3(1) and (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act, Articles 26 and 225 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Soh-young

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011No4052 Decided December 22, 2011

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and held that even if the father of the victim expressed his wish not to punish the defendant against the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the victim has a litigation capacity to express his wish to punish the defendant in the crime of non-violation of will, and that the father of the victim does not want to punish the defendant on behalf of the victim, and that the father of the victim cannot be viewed as a legal representative as a matter of course because the victim has no mental capacity, even though the father of the victim expressed his wish not to punish the defendant, it cannot be legally effective in the lawsuit due to the victim's expression of desire to punish the defendant in the crime of non-violation of will.

Examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents by misunderstanding the legal principles on the scope and limits of analogical interpretation, thereby violating Article 26 or 225 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In cases where an adult victim is in an unknown state of consciousness, his father shall be deemed to be able to make the victim’s expression of wish not to punish the crime of no punishment on behalf of the victim, or independently, effective

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)