[1] The meaning of "date on which he becomes aware of a criminal under Article 230 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act"

[2] The degree of specification of criminal facts in a complaint for a crime of adultery

[1] The main text of Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a complaint shall not be filed after the lapse of six months from the date on which the offender becomes aware of a crime subject to victim's complaint. In this context, "the person who becomes aware of an offender" means the person who becomes aware of the identity of the offender. It is sufficient to recognize that the identity of the offender is recognizable, and the name, address, age, etc. of the offender need not be known.

[2] Although the criminal facts should be specified in the complaint for the crime of adultery, the specific degree can only be determined by specifying what criminal facts the complainant's intent specifically seeks to punish the criminal, and it does not need to specify the criminal facts by clearly stating the date, time, place, method, etc. of the criminal facts.

[1] Article 230 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 241 of the Criminal Act, Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 84Do1704 delivered on October 23, 1984 (Gong1984, 1871), Supreme Court Decision 87Do114 delivered on October 25, 198 (Gong198, 1490), Supreme Court Decision 90Do603 delivered on September 28, 1990 (Gong190, 2245), Supreme Court Decision 97Do1769 delivered on March 26, 199 (Gong199, 815)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Park So-young

Daegu District Court Decision 98No3096 delivered on January 15, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant's complaint as a crime of adultery on November 25, 1997, after considering the evidence as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, that the complainant was aware of the fact that the complainant was sent to the co-defendant on November 25, 1997, who was his wife and the defendant as stated in the facts charged. On the same day, the defendant's house was found to have been sent to the defendant's wife, and forced the defendant to write a written statement recognizing the defendant's correspondence with his wife, and on June 3, 1998, the complainant was found to have been guilty on the ground that the complaint was filed on June 3, 1998 after the lapse of six months from the time of the complaint, and that the defendant was not prosecuted, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance was reversed and invalidated.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

If the relevant evidence is examined by comparison with the records, the court below's fact-finding is justified, and in light of this, it is just that the complainant was aware that the co-defendant of the first instance court, his wife, and the defendant was able to know the shared facts in November 25, 197.

Therefore, as alleged in the ground of appeal No. 1, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts due to violation of the rules of evidence.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The main text of Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that a complaint shall not be filed after the lapse of six months from the date on which the offender becomes aware of a crime subject to victim's complaint. In this context, it means that the offender becomes aware of the identity of the offender. It is sufficient to recognize the identity of the offender to the extent that the identity of the offender can be identified, and the name, address, and age of the offender need not be known.

In addition, the criminal facts should also be specified in the complaint for the crime of adultery, but the specific degree can only be determined by specifying what criminal facts the complainant's intent specifically seeks to punish the criminal, and it does not need to specify the criminal facts by clearly stating the date, time, place, method, etc. of his/her own crime (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do114, Oct. 25, 198). Accordingly, the argument that the criminal should not be deemed to have been committed on the date on which he/she specifically becomes aware of the constituent elements of the crime of adultery, such as the date, time, place, etc. of communication, cannot be accepted.

Therefore, as alleged in the ground of appeal No. 2, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the period of filing a complaint under Article 230 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Justices Cho Chang-hoon (Presiding Justice)