A. As a matter of course, the Defendant, as the victim’s father, commits the instant crime as the victim’s penalty, constitutes an offense for which a public prosecution may be instituted only upon the complaint under Articles 354 and 328(2) of the Criminal Act; with respect to an offense subject to victim’s complaint, a complaint shall not be filed after six

However, the victim demanded the defendant to pay money no longer than the interest on the loan, and the defendant promised to sell and redeem the land owned by the defendant to the victim around 2011.

On October 2015, the victim was aware that the copy of the register of the above land was inspected and the auction procedure was in progress. At least around that time, the victim was aware of criminal facts.

Since the instant complaint was filed on June 21, 2016, which was six months after the lapse of such six months, it was unlawful and thus, the court below held that the complaint was lawful despite the judgment dismissing the public prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. In fact, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the loan from the victim at the time of borrowing the loan, but was unable to repay the loan ex post due to unexpected circumstances after the loan, but the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The main text of Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "No complaint shall be filed after the lapse of six months from the date on which a person becomes aware of a crime subject to victim's complaint" in the main text of Article 230(1) of the same Act provides that "the criminal shall be known" in this context, from the ordinary standpoint, means the criminal facts and criminal facts to the extent that a person who has the right to file a complaint may file a complaint, and the fact of criminal facts