The nature of the right to file a complaint and the period thereof.

Since the right to file a complaint by a legal representative is an inherent right and is independent right from the right to file a complaint of the victim and does not exercise the right on behalf of the victim, the period for filing a complaint should be counted from the date the legal representative becomes aware of the

Articles 225, 226, and 230 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A

Defendant and Prosecutor

Sung-dong Branch of Seoul District Court (78 Gohap133)

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

(1) First of all, we examine the defendant's guilty part (Rape and attempted rape) and prosecutor's grounds of appeal in the judgment below.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is as follows: first, although the defendant either committed or attempted to commit sexual intercourse under the agreement with the victim B and C, the court below found the defendant guilty of rape and attempted rape, which affected the judgment of the court below. Second, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or incomplete deliberation. Second, the complaint by the victim B and his legal representative is not made by the complainant, but by coercion of the police officer in charge, and the complaint by the victim B and their legal representative was submitted. The above complaint is null and void. In particular, since the victim B's legal representative's complaint was filed more than 6 months after the date when the victim became aware of the crime, the right to file a complaint was extinguished, the court below's finding the defendant guilty against the above victim was erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime subject to victim's complaint, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the summary of the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, in light of the records, the first ground for appeal is examined as to the defendant and his defense counsel's above first ground for appeal. In light of the records, since the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he committed the crime against the will of the victim B and C by assault and intimidation like the original contents at the time, the first ground for appeal concerning mistake of facts cannot be accepted, and the second ground for appeal concerning mistake of facts cannot be accepted, and even after examining the following records, there is no evidence suggesting that the victim of each rape and attempted rape of the defendant and his legal representative were submitted by coercion of the relevant investigator, such as the theory about whether the defendant's right to file a complaint ceases to exist when the legal representative's right to file a complaint expires due to reasons such as the degree of time for filing a complaint, etc., but the legal representative's right to file a complaint should be interpreted as independent right from the victim's right to file a complaint, and the defendant's legal representative's right to file a complaint after the lapse of 7 years from the date when the defendant's legal representative becomes aware of the crime.

(2) Next, the prosecutor's grounds of appeal concerning the part not guilty of the judgment of the court below are examined. The prosecutor's grounds of appeal against the above part of the judgment of the court below are as follows: first, the court below accepted the criminal facts of this case from the prosecutor's office and the police without any evidence that it is false confession made by the counsel of the police officer who investigated the crime of this case, and second, the confession of this case was dismissed without reasonable grounds; third, the defendant's arbitrary testimony of E in which the "insation" was made at the time of the crime of rape, etc.; third, in full view of the clothes and letters seized around the crime of this case, etc., the facts of this case can be sufficiently recognized, but the court below erred by misapprehending the facts that there was no evidence as to this case by separately examining the evidence, without examining comprehensively the evidence evidence, and by misapprehending the facts that there was no evidence as to this case.

Therefore, by comparing the reasoning of the judgment below and the records of the case in detail, we cannot find that there was an error of law as pointed out in the decision process of the court below, and it cannot be found that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence in the judgment of the court below, and the reasons for

(3) Therefore, all appeals filed by the Defendant and the prosecutor pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act are dismissed.

It is so decided as per Disposition with the above reasons.

Judges Park Ho-dong (Presiding Judge)