Supreme Court: "Fine Imposed Despite Victim's 'No Punishment' Statement... Prosecution Dismissed in Daegum Emergency Appeal Case"

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

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] In a 'non-prosecution upon victim's request' case where the perpetrator cannot be punished if the victim does not wish to press charges, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office filed an extraordinary appeal against a confirmed fine judgment despite the victim expressing a desire not to punish, and the Supreme Court corrected the ruling. An extraordinary appeal is an emergency relief procedure in which the Prosecutor General requests a retrial at the Supreme Court when an illegality is found in a finalized criminal judgment.

On the 5th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cho Jaeyeon) announced that in the extraordinary appeal trial of Mr. A, who was indicted on assault charges, it overturned the original judgment that sentenced a summary order of a 1 million won fine and dismissed the indictment.

Earlier, in 2019 in Gunsan, Jeonbuk, Mr. A had an argument with taxi driver Mr. B, who refused to let him board the taxi on the grounds that he had accepted another customer's call. During this process, Mr. A was booked on charges of assault for pulling Mr. B's earlobe.

In the same year, the prosecution filed a summary indictment against Mr. A. A summary indictment is a procedure in which the prosecution requests the court to issue a summary order such as a fine, penalty, or confiscation for relatively minor offenses.

Subsequently, Mr. A submitted a settlement agreement with Mr. B, who stated "I do not wish to punish," to the court. Article 232, Paragraph 3 of the current Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that "an assault charge cannot be prosecuted against the explicit will of the victim." However, the court did not dismiss the summary order request and imposed a fine of 1 million won on Mr. A.

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office, having belatedly recognized the submission of the settlement agreement, filed an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court in December last year after the period for requesting a formal trial had passed.

The Supreme Court also deemed the extraordinary appeal by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to be valid. The bench stated, "An assault charge cannot be prosecuted against the explicit will of the victim," and "the victim expressed a desire not to punish the defendant before the summary order request was made." It further noted, "Therefore, the filing of the summary order request in this case is invalid as the procedure violates the law."

It added, "Nonetheless, the original judgment that issued the summary order overlooking this fact violated the law," and dismissed the indictment.