The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the defendant and the victim are related to each other, so the crime of acquiring the stolen property in this case constitutes a crime subject to prosecution subject to prosecution. The victim expressed his/her intent to revoke the complaint before

Therefore, even though the dismissal judgment should be pronounced, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In the case of the crime of acquiring stolens, if the principal of the stolen and the victim are relatives who do not live together, a public prosecution may be instituted only upon the victim’s complaint (Article 365(1) and Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act). According to the records, the fact that the defendant and the victim are relatives of the third degree who do not live together with Chok and the outer third degree, and the victim submitted to the court of original judgment on January 13, 2017, which was before the judgment of the court below was rendered, after the prosecution of this case was instituted.

Therefore, the court below should have dismissed the prosecution under Article 327 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is with merit, and the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is ruled after pleading.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: “The Defendant is the subject of the Victim C’s Republic of Korea.

D around June 2, 2015, at the victim's house located in 3 Dong Dong 201 and the victim's house located in 3 Dong 201, the victim laid down his house with the head of the Ansan-gun and the small head of the Ansan-gun, using the drone, and then cut off with 50 million won in cash.

Defendant 48 million won out of the cash amount of KRW 50 million owned by the victim who has stolen the same as above from the above D at the above date, time and place.