The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel (1) misunderstanding the legal doctrine is a blood relative with the Defendant in the fifth degree of relationship. Thus, the instant facts charged can be prosecuted only when the victim files a complaint pursuant to Articles 354 and 328(2) of the Criminal Act. Since the victim files a complaint against the Defendant after the lapse of the filing period of the victim’s complaint subject to victim’s complaint under Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the victim’s complaint is an incidental law.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is instituted based on illegal complaints, and the public prosecution procedure of this case is null and void in violation of the provisions of the law, and thus the public prosecution should be dismissed.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to relative standing and the period of filing a complaint subject to victim’s complaint, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, by excluding this case’s charges and finding the Defendant guilty.

(2) In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s wrongful sentencing is in profoundly against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime intentionally without fault; (c) the degree of deception is minor; and (d) the care of the Defendant is necessary to care for the husband and children of the Defendant, who is the disabled; and (c) where the Defendant continues to be detained, the family members are placed in excessive difficulty; and (d) there is a need to consider equity in the case of a judgment simultaneously with a crime of fraud for which the judgment became final and conclusive on December 30, 2011. In light of the above, the lower court’s sentence that sentenced six months of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

B. The instant crime committed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) was committed by the victim by deceiving the victim as “a person who has no intention or ability to operate a medical care center by winning a successful bid for the building from auction and operating a medical care center in the same business” and by deceiving him/her as a total of KRW 73 million, which is not good, the damage is not recovered, and the Defendant has a record of having been sentenced two times to punishment due to the same crime.