Supreme Court: Punishment of Assault Perpetrator Who Reached Settlement with Victim Is Illegal

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul. Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal to convict an assailant of assault despite the victim expressing a desire not to press charges through a settlement.

Since assault is a "non-prosecution offense upon victim's objection," meaning the perpetrator cannot be punished if the victim does not wish to prosecute, the court held that the indictment should have been dismissed.

On the 22nd, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Kim Seonsu) overturned the lower court's ruling that sentenced Jang to two years in prison on charges including assault, and remanded the case to the Cheongju District Court.

The court stated, "The victim withdrew their intention to seek punishment before the first trial's verdict," and "the lower court should have dismissed the indictment regarding the assault charge."

In 2019, Jang was prosecuted for assaulting employee A after being stopped for smoking without a leash on his dog at a theme park in Chungbuk, and also assaulting employee B who tried to intervene.

Additionally, Jang was charged with various other offenses including injury, assault, fraud, and violations of the Road Traffic Act.

The first trial combined Jang's charges and sentenced him to two years in prison. He appealed, but the second trial dismissed the appeal.

However, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling. It was revealed that Jang had reached a settlement with the victims during the trial before the first verdict, and B submitted a settlement agreement stating that he did not wish to press charges.

The court said, "Jang's side submitted a settlement agreement in B's name before the first trial verdict, stating 'We absolutely do not wish to punish the defendant and ask for leniency.' The lower court upheld the first trial's guilty verdict on this matter, which is a legal error misunderstanding the law regarding withdrawal of the victim's intention to seek punishment in non-prosecution offenses."

It added, "The part of the lower court's ruling concerning the assault on B should be overturned, but a single sentence was imposed in the first trial. Ultimately, the entire lower court ruling must be overturned," and remanded the case.