The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was the victim C’s blind village of the victim C’s interest victim D.

On March 2015, the Defendant, at the home of the victims in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, sought a loan of KRW 268 million out of the above KRW 2771 million to the victims who were in the said house and the site of the said house beyond the public sale disposition, and went away from the said house. The Defendant would like to find the said house by combining the loan with that of the victims who were in the said KRW 268 million out of the total KRW 271 million.

“.....”

However, in fact, the defendant purchased the above house again and obtained the loan as a security, and tried to cover the defendant's factory operation fund with the loan, and there was no intention or ability to find the above house to the victims.

On March 13, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 268 million from the victims to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant’s wife F.

Accordingly, the defendant was provided property by deceiving victims.

B. In the case of fraud, a public prosecution may be instituted only when the victim is a relative who does not live together (Articles 354 and 328(2) of the Criminal Act). However, the victim C and D, a relative who does not live together with the defendant, respectively, revoked the complaint against the defendant after the prosecution of this case.

Therefore, the facts charged of this case constitute the cancellation of a complaint with respect to a case which must be prosecuted only upon a complaint, and thus, the public prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.