사기
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
1. On March 20, 2014, the Defendant: (a) at the home of the Defendant (D Apartment 117 dong 1405), the Defendant called, “At the time, the Victim E, who was at the time, was phoneed, that “The Plaintiff transferred the F land ownership of the Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-gu, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, which was held in order to lease KRW 20 million prior to the lease, to B.”
However, even if the defendant transferred ownership from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to lend 20 million won.
Nevertheless, around March 25, 2014, the Defendant was transferred the ownership of the said land (or KRW 40 million at the victim’s assertion) as a collateral by the victim on March 25, 2014.
Accordingly, the defendant had taken property benefits by deceiving the victim.
2. The facts charged of the instant case are crimes falling under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, which are applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act. According to Article 354 of the Criminal Act, where a victim and an offender have no lineal blood relative, spouse, relative living together, family member living together, or his/her spouse, a public prosecution may be instituted only upon the victim’s complaint. According to the records, the victim has a relative relationship as prescribed in the above provision among relatives not living together with the defendant (the victim’s title is transferred to the defendant) and the victim has a relative relationship as prescribed in the above provision (the victim’s title). The victim can be acknowledged
Thus, the prosecution procedure in this case is invalid in violation of the provisions of law, and the prosecution is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.