A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, fraud and fraud as to C.

A. (i) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine - fraud and embezzlement against C - The victim C is a relative to whom the case of blood relatives of the defendant's spouse (the fourth degree) is applicable as well as relatives under Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act.

After all, this part of the facts charged can be prosecuted only upon a complaint, and the victim C revoked the complaint against the defendant on June 27, 2017, which was before the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered.

Nevertheless, the court below did not dismiss this part of the facts charged and found guilty. The judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to precedent among relatives.

The sentence sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The court below convicted the prosecutor -C of this part of the facts charged despite the dismissal of prosecution as stated in paragraph (1) above, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the case of fraud and embezzlement with respect to the prosecutor -C. This part of the facts charged.

2. Judgment on the misunderstanding of the legal principles

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the fraud and embezzlement against C is a crime falling under Articles 347(1) and 355(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis by Articles 354 and 361 of the Criminal Act, is also applicable to the cases of the fraud and embezzlement against C, respectively.

According to the records, since the defendant's husband Eul, who is the husband of the defendant, was the victim C and the victim's husband, the defendant was legally related to relatives within the fourth degree of marriage (Article 777 of the Civil Act) with the victim C and the victim C, the defendant and the victim C did not live together, and the victim C submitted a written agreement on June 27, 2017, which was before the decision of the court below, stating that the defendant would not want punishment against the defendant.

Therefore, each part of the facts charged constitutes a cancellation of a complaint against a victim's complaint.