The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who was sentenced to four months of imprisonment for a crime in support of the Sungnam branch of Suwon District Court on December 9, 2015, and the sentence became final and conclusive on December 17, 2015.

On April 30, 2014, at a notary public D office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Building 601, the Defendant drafted a certificate of transfer of the right to three patented products (F, G, and H) under the name of the Defendant to the victim I, who is the son of E, in return for the amount of KRW 78,60,000 invested in the process of the operation of E.

According to the agreement, the defendant's duty to immediately implement the procedure for transferring the above three patented products to the victim.

Nevertheless, on August 7, 2014, the Defendant transferred the F patent right to J Co., Ltd. in violation of the foregoing duties, and completed the procedure for the registration of transfer of the above patent right on September 29, 2014.

Accordingly, the Defendant acquired the pecuniary advantage equivalent to the patent right against the “F” of the market value, and suffered the same amount as the victim.

2. We examine the judgment, and the facts charged are crimes falling under Article 355(2) of the Criminal Act.

According to Article 328 (2) of the Criminal Code which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 361 of the Criminal Code, if there is a relationship of relationship between the victim and the defendant under the above provision, the crime of breach of trust can be prosecuted only upon the victim's complaint.

According to the records, the mother of the victim I is the father L and sibling of the defendant, and the defendant and the victim have a relationship of relationship under Article 328 (2) of the Criminal Code.

On March 2, 2016, after the prosecution of this case was instituted, the victim I submitted a written withdrawal of complaint to this court.

Therefore, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.