We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant and the victim D are related to the fourth degree of relationship, and since the victim D revoked the complaint against the Defendant before the court of first instance rendered a judgment, the judgment of the court of first instance should be rendered to dismiss the public prosecution, even though the judgment of the court of first instance was erroneous.

B. The sentence of first deliberation on sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Of the facts charged in this case’s judgment of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the summary of the fraud point out of the facts charged is as shown in the attached Form. This is a crime falling under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, which is a crime between relatives not living together due to the precedent of relatives under Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 354 of the Criminal Act, is subject to prosecution only upon the victim’s complaint.

According to the records, the defendant, as the wife of the victim D, is in a relationship between L and the external relative within the fourth degree of relationship with the victim D, and the defendant did not live together with the victim D and his marriage within the fourth degree of relationship (see Article 777 of the Civil Act). However, after the victim D institution of the instant prosecution, the defendant can be found to have withdrawn the complaint against the defendant to the first instance court on November 23, 2016, which was before the judgment of the first instance was rendered (Submission of a written agreement and withdrawal of complaint, and page 141 of the trial record). Accordingly, since this part of the facts charged constitute revocation of the complaint against a crime subject to victim's complaint, it is necessary to dismiss the prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance recognized this part of the charges to be guilty, and sentenced one punishment by deeming the remaining crimes as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code along with the remaining crimes. In this regard, the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained any more.

3. If so, the defendant's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles is with merit, so Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's improper argument of sentencing.