All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2021Do11126 Decided July 13, 2023 【Violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Inflicting Bodily Injury)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] As regards crimes not prosecutable against the express will of a victim, whether a guardian for a victim who is an incapacitated adult is prohibited from representing the said victim, without explicit provisions, and determine an intention of not wanting the defendant or the accused to be punished or revoke the previously declared intention of wanting punishment (negative) Whether this likewise applies to cases where the scope of legal representation by a guardian for an incapacitated adult includes ordinary litigation conduct or where a guardian for an incapacitated adult acquires permission from the Family Court when he or she engages in litigation conduct in compliance with the adjudication of commencement of adult guardianship (affirmative) [2] In the case where: (a) the Defendant, while riding a bicycle, caused serious injury to Victim A, a pedestrian, by neglecting his duty to remain vigilant and aware of the surroundings and was thus indicted on the charge of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Infliction of Bodily Injury); (b) Victim A fell into unconsciousness due to the above accident, against whom adult guardianship has commenced and Victim A’s legal spouse, Party B, was appointed as the guardian; and (c) Party B received settlement money from the Defendant and declared an intention of not wanting the Defendant to be punished on behalf of Victim A prior to the pronouncement of the first instance court decision, the case holding that since the crime of inflicting bodily injury due to occupational negligence, which a driver of a vehicle caused through a traffic accident, as stated in Article 3(2) of the abovementioned Special Act, states that an indictment shall not be brought “against express will of the victim” and thus clearly conveys in the text that the punishment of an accused depends on the “express” intention of the “victim,” the interpretation that Party B may represent Victim A and form or determine an intention of not wanting punishment contravenes the language of the statute | |
