The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal revealed that the victim came to know of the transfer of the ownership of the instant house (Seoul Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, T land and ground housing) to K around December 2014, and thereafter resisting the Defendant, the Defendant stated to the effect that “only the name of ownership belongs to K in the future, and in substance, the Defendant still owns F.” The victim believed that “it is possible for the victim to obtain a loan of this case as security at any time in the F.” As such, the victim was finally aware that the Defendant was the victim around that time.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, by misunderstanding the legal principles on “the day on which the victim became aware of the offender,” which is the day when the period for filing a complaint subject to victim’s complaint, and misunderstanding the facts, the lower court finally recognized that the victim was likely to suffer from fraud at the latest around December 2014.

As a result of recognition, the period of complaint against victim's complaint has expired.

The lower court erred.

2. (1) The lower court determined that the instant facts charged constitute an offense subject to prosecution pursuant to Articles 354 and 328(2) of the Criminal Act, and that the instant facts charged constituted an offense subject to prosecution pursuant to Article 354 and 328(2) of the Criminal Act; the instant facts charged, which were raised on March 30, 2016, was instituted after the expiration of the period for filing a complaint; thus, the instant facts charged constitute a case where the prosecution procedure, which was instituted based on secondary and legal

(2) The main text of 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 a person becomes aware of the offender in relation to an offense subject to prosecution subject to prosecution.” Here, the term “component” means, from the ordinary person’s perspective, that a person who has the right to file a complaint knows a crime and an offender to the extent that the person who has the right to file a complaint is able to file a complaint, and that a person who has the right to file a complaint knows a criminal fact refers to a conclusive perception of the facts that the person who has the right to file a complaint has