On February 2, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the victims of organized violence at the victims’ residence in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, stating that “I will receive and repay a loan within two months from the lending of money. I would like to find children in need of KRW 150,000,000,000.”

However, in fact, E did not put the victims into organized violence, and even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victims, it was thought that he would use it as the business fund of F, a company run by the Defendant, and as at the time, he did not meet the financial condition of the above company, and thus, he did not have any intent or ability to repay it to the victims.

Nevertheless, as seen earlier, the Defendant, by deceiving the victims, received KRW 110 million from the victim B on February 27, 2014, and KRW 40 million on the same day from the victim C to the business bank account in the name of E.

Accordingly, the defendant was provided property by deceiving the victims.

2. The judgment below is a crime falling under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act. According to Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act, where a victim and an offender have a blood relative, spouse, relative living together, family member living together, or his/her spouse who is not a simple one, the case can be prosecuted only upon the victim’s complaint.

However, according to the records, the defendant and the victims can be recognized as having kinships who do not live together, and the victims did not want criminal punishment against the defendant after the prosecution of this case, and thus have expressed their intent to revoke the complaint (see, e.g., the withdrawal of the complaint and the refusal of punishment as of June 17, 2019). Thus, pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant