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 the offender becomes aware of the offense subject to victim's complaint."

Here, "a person who is aware of a criminal" means that a person who has a right to file a complaint is aware of a criminal facts and criminal facts to the extent that he/she can file a complaint.

Among them, "A person who knows a crime" means a conclusive perception of facts that a person who has filed a complaint has suffered damage to a crime subject to victim's complaint.

The crime of embezzlement is established when a person who keeps another’s property embezzleds the property. Meanwhile, the act of embezzlement as a constituent element of embezzlement refers to all the acts of realizing an intent to acquire unlawful property, and thus, when a person who possesses another’s property commits an objective act that can be perceived from the outside with the intent to possess it for himself/herself, the crime of embezzlement is established as to the entire property, and the disposal of the property again after embezzlement constitutes an act after embezzlement.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination that the instant complaint was filed after the lapse of the filing period for a crime subject to victim’s complaint due to a crime among relatives on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by violating the logical and empirical rules, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on embezzlement and the period of filing a complaint.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.