In the current academic community, it is widely recognized that the victim plays a role as an element in the composition. However, there is still no consensus among scholars regarding the eἀectiveness of post-injury victim promises. Ḁe complete denial of post-injury victim promises theory exhibits certain biases in terms of the timing and evidentiary basis for the validity of victim promises, and it also contradicts current criminal legislative norms and trends in judicial reform. In light of this, it is important to examine the powerful value of post-injury victim promises in terms of repairing social relationships, optimizing the allocation of judicial resources, and promoting the mitigation of punishment from multiple perspectives. However, at the same time, the eἀectiveness of post-injury promises is not automatic simply because they exist, and the scope of their eἀectiveness should be analyzed and reᴀned based on the speciᴀc circumstances of each case type.