The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the facts charged of misconception of facts, it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below that the court below dismissed the prosecution on this part of the facts charged on the ground that the period of accusation lapsed, even though the victim filed a complaint within the lawful period of accusation, among the facts charged of misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence (1,000,000 won) on the ground of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) On July 201, 201, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the victim stated from the lower court’s court on July 201 and December 201 that the Defendant had become aware of the fact that the Defendant had made the same remarks as the facts charged (the record of the public trial). On July 2011, J stated at the investigative agency that the victim had talked about this part of the Defendant’s crime (Evidence 19 page), and at the lower court court’s court stated that the victim was aware of this part of the facts charged (Evidence 19 page) that the Defendant had talked about the Defendant’s crime (Evidence 19 page), and that the court stated that the Defendant was aware of a talk when transplanting the protetype was transplanted (the record of the public trial from 63 to 64 pages of the public trial record, and the time of transplantation of the protetype is deemed to have been the first policeman of May every year

In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that the victim was aware of the fact that the defendant committed the crime under this part of this part at the latest in July 201 by J. Thus, the complaint filed on March 2, 2012, which was six months thereafter, is unlawful. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s allegation in this part is without merit. 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below during August 201, i.e., the victim stated in the court of the court below that the victim respondeded from K who was a patrolman during August 201 (the trial record No. 54 pages), and that K stated that the investigative agency did not know about the crime under this part of this part, and that it was N around August 2011 from the court of the court of the court below.