1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court determined that the victim of the instant fraud was C and there was C’s complaint regarding the instant fraud with the submission of the instant complaint.

In light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the victim of fraud and the proxy complaint, but did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4, the lower court determined that the instant complaint was lawful on February 19, 2013, where six months have not elapsed since it was reasonable to deem that C had been aware of the Defendant’s loss by fraud on October 2012.

In light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the starting point of the period of filing a complaint in an offense subject to victim's complaint, "vis major reasons" in the proviso of Article 230 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the burden of proof as to the existence of a complaint, and

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