Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Withdrawal of the intention to punish before the first-instance judgment
Supreme Court, Dec. 13, 2019, 2019Do10678 (judgment)
Case name: 성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(카메라등이용촬영)·협박·성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(통신매체이용음란)·정보통신망이용촉진및정보보호등에관한법률위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Are the crime of threat and the offence of violating Article 44-7(1)(iii) of the Information and Communications Network Act offences that cannot be prosecuted against the will the victim has stated, when may the intention to punish be withdrawn, may the victim's lawyer act on the victim's behalf in withdrawing it, and must the absence of an intention not to punish be examined by the court on its own motion?
Holding
Yes, on all points. Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act and Article 74(2) of the Information and Communications Network Act place both offences among those that cannot be prosecuted against the will the victim has stated, and the intention to punish may be withdrawn, or a statement that no punishment is wanted made, up to the point before the first-instance judgment is pronounced. Because the absence of such an intention is a negative procedural condition, the court below had to examine and decide it on its own motion even though no party raised it as a ground of appeal. The victim's lawyer holds a comprehensive authority of representation over every procedural act in which representing the victim is allowed, so that lawyer may withdraw the intention to punish, or state that no punishment is wanted, on the victim's behalf.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 피해자의 변호사는 피해자를 대리하여 피고인에 대한 처벌을 희망하는 의사표시를 철회하거나 처벌을 희망하지 않는 의사표시를 할 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, the victim's attorney may, on behalf of the victim, withdraw the statement of intent to seek punishment of the defendant or make a statement of intent not to seek punishment.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
처벌불원의 의사표시의 부존재는 소극적 소송조건으로서 직권조사사항에 해당하므로 당사자가 항소이유로 주장하지 않았더라도 원심은 이를 직권으로 조사·판단하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
The absence of a statement of intent not to seek punishment constitutes a negative condition for litigation and is therefore a matter to be examined ex officio, so the court below must examine and determine it ex officio even if a party has not raised it as a ground of appeal.
Factors
- 형법 제283조 제3항은 ‘제283조 제1항의 죄는 피해자의 명시한 의사에 반하여 공소를 제기할 수 없다.’고 정하고
- 정보통신망 이용촉진 및 정보보호 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘정보통신망법’이라 한다) 제74조 제2항은 ‘제74조 제1항 제3호의 죄는 피해자가 구체적으로 밝힌 의사에 반하여 공소를 제기할 수 없다.’고 정하고 있다
- 반의사불벌죄에서 처벌을 희망하는 의사표시의 철회 또는 처벌을 희망하지 않는 의사표시는 제1심판결 선고 전까지 할 수 있다(형사소송법 제232조 제1항, 제3항)
- 피해자의 변호사는 형사절차에서 피해자 등의 대리가 허용될 수 있는 모든 소송행위에 대한 포괄적인 대리권을 가진다(제5항)
Unofficial English translation
• Article 283 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Act provides that 'the crime under Article 283 paragraph (1) may not be prosecuted against the victim's express will,' and
• Article 74 paragraph (2) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection') provides that 'the crime under Article 74 paragraph (1) subparagraph 3 may not be prosecuted against the intent specifically expressed by the victim.'
• In an offense unpunishable over the victim's objection, a statement of intent to withdraw the wish for punishment or a statement of intent not to seek punishment may be made prior to the pronouncement of judgment by the court of first instance (Criminal Procedure Act Article 232 paragraphs (1) and (3)).
• The victim's attorney has a general authority of representation for all acts of litigation for which the representation of the victim, etc. is permitted in criminal proceedings (paragraph (5)).
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2001. 4. 24. 선고 2000도3172 판결(공2001상, 1296)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3172 decided April 24, 2001 (Gong 2001 Sang, 1296)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2001. 4. 24. 선고 2000도3172 판결(공2001상, 1296), 대법원 2002. 3. 15. 선고 2002도158 판결(공2002상, 947)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the lawyer's statement that no punishment is wanted conflicts with the victim's own expressed will, how is the validity of that withdrawal decided?
A later decision on the scope of the comprehensive authority of representation under Article 27(5) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, or an amendment to Article 232 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the period for withdrawing the intention to punish, would require this entry to be read again. The remand judgment of the Incheon District Court will show how the court below examines the negative procedural condition.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The first-instance court convicted the defendant on all counts and sentenced him to ten months' imprisonment, suspended for two years. Only the prosecution appealed, and only on the excessive sentence. The appellate court, Incheon District Court Judgment 5 July 2019 (2019No197), vacated that judgment on its own motion, reasoning that, under Article 2 of the Supplementary Provisions of the amended Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities, which was added by Act No. 15904 of 11 December 2018 and took effect on 12 June 2019, it had to examine and decide on the ancillary order restricting employment under Article 59-3 of that Act. It then convicted the defendant on all counts and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the victim's court-appointed lawyer had submitted, on 8 January 2019 and before the first-instance judgment, a withdrawal and non-punishment statement recording that the victim had settled with the defendant and did not want him punished. The court below therefore had to examine on its own motion whether the intention to punish had been lawfully withdrawn and to clarify the negative procedural condition, and deciding all counts guilty without doing so misapprehended the law on offences against the victim's will and failed to carry out necessary examination, affecting the judgment. Because the threat and Information and Communications Network Act counts had to be reversed and were joined with the remaining counts in a single sentence under the first paragraph of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the whole judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A count that is not an offence against the victim's will under Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act or Article 74(2) of the Information and Communications Network Act, since the Court decided this point only for the threat and Information and Communications Network Act counts.
- A statement that no punishment is wanted made after the first-instance judgment has been pronounced, since the Court fixed that date as the limit.
- A document made by someone who is not the victim's lawyer holding the comprehensive authority of representation under Article 27(5) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes.
Record verification notes
Set the date and the maker of the non-punishment statement against the date the first-instance judgment was pronounced, and confirm that the lawyer was selected under Article 27(6) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes or retained under its Article 27(1). Then check how the counts to be reversed stand with the counts left standing, since a single sentence for joined offences under Article 37 of the Criminal Act will carry the whole judgment with it.
From the official text
Points at issue
협박죄와 정보통신망 이용촉진 및 정보보호 등에 관한 법률 제74조 제1항 제3호에서 정한 ‘제44조의7 제1항 제3호를 위반한 죄’가 반의사불벌죄에 해당하는지 여부(적극) / 반의사불벌죄에서 처벌을 희망하는 의사표시의 철회 또는 처벌을 희망하지 않는 의사표시를 할 수 있는 시기(=제1심판결 선고 전까지) 및 처벌불원 의사표시의 부존재가 법원의 직권조사사항에 해당하는지 여부(적극) / 성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제27조에 따라 성폭력범죄 피해자의 변호사는 피해자를 대리하여 피고인에 대한 처벌을 희망하는 의사표시를 철회하거나 처벌을 희망하지 않는 의사표시를 할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the crime of intimidation and 'the crime of violating Article 44-7 paragraph (1) subparagraph 3' as provided in Article 74 paragraph (1) subparagraph 3 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection constitute offenses unpunishable over the victim's objection (affirmative) / The time at which, in an offense unpunishable over the victim's objection, a statement of intent to withdraw the wish for punishment or a statement of intent not to seek punishment may be made (= prior to the pronouncement of judgment by the court of first instance), and whether the absence of a statement of intent not to seek punishment is a matter to be examined ex officio by the court (affirmative) / Whether, under Article 27 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, the victim's attorney in a sexual crime may, on behalf of the victim, withdraw the statement of intent to seek punishment of the defendant or make a statement of intent not to seek punishment (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
형법 제283조 제3항은 ‘제283조 제1항의 죄는 피해자의 명시한 의사에 반하여 공소를 제기할 수 없다.’고 정하고, 정보통신망 이용촉진 및 정보보호 등에 관한 법률(이하 ‘정보통신망법’이라 한다) 제74조 제2항은 ‘제74조 제1항 제3호의 죄는 피해자가 구체적으로 밝힌 의사에 반하여 공소를 제기할 수 없다.’고 정하고 있다. 즉 협박죄와 정보통신망법 제74조 제1항 제3호에서 정한 제44조의7 제1항 제3호를 위반한 죄는 모두 반의사불벌죄에 해당한다. 반의사불벌죄에서 처벌을 희망하는 의사표시의 철회 또는 처벌을 희망하지 않는 의사표시는 제1심판결 선고 전까지 할 수 있다(형사소송법 제232조 제1항, 제3항). 처벌불원의 의사표시의 부존재는 소극적 소송조건으로서 직권조사사항에 해당하므로 당사자가 항소이유로 주장하지 않았더라도 원심은 이를 직권으로 조사·판단하여야 한다. 성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제27조는 성폭력범죄 피해자에 대한 변호사 선임의 특례를 정하고 있다. 성폭력범죄의 피해자는 형사절차상 법률적 조력을 받기 위해 스스로 변호사를 선임할 수 있고(제1항), 검사는 피해자에게 변호사가 없는 경우 국선변호사를 선정하여 형사절차에서 피해자의 권익을 보호할 수 있으며(제6항), 피해자의 변호사는 형사절차에서 피해자 등의 대리가 허용될 수 있는 모든 소송행위에 대한 포괄적인 대리권을 가진다(제5항). 따라서 피해자의 변호사는 피해자를 대리하여 피고인에 대한 처벌을 희망하는 의사표시를 철회하거나 처벌을 희망하지 않는 의사표시를 할 수 있다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court.
Provisions referred to
형법 제283조 제1항, 제3항, 정보통신망 이용촉진 및 정보보호 등에 관한 법률 제44조의7 제1항 제3호, 제74조 제1항 제3호, 제2항, 성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 제27조 제1항, 제5항, 제6항, 형사소송법 제232조 제1항, 제3항, 제327조 제6호, 제364조 제2항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger