The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of mistake of facts knew that the circumstances of the E Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendant at the time of the instant lease (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) had a claim for the construction cost at the construction site located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul and considered that the above construction would have been entrusted to the victim and would have been repaid for the construction cost, and lent money to the Defendant.

In addition, at the time, the defendant company had sufficient capability to pay the above construction price claims.

Therefore, there was no fact that the defendant was deceiving the victim and there was no intention to commit the crime of deception.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The instant case constitutes an offense subject to victim’s complaint, and the Defendant ex officio makes ex officio decisions, on the grounds that the instant case constitutes an offense subject to victim’s complaint, and the Defendant asserted that the instant case was filed only after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal. We examine whether the period for filing

The main sentence 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 the person becomes aware of the offense subject to victim's complaint". The phrase "the person becomes aware of an offense" refers to the fact that the person has become aware of the offense and the offender to the extent that he/she is able to file a complaint from the ordinary standpoint of the person who has become aware of the offense subject to victim's complaint, and

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the fact that the victim was subject to a decision on provisional seizure of real estate on the real estate owned by the Defendant Company and was entirely unable to receive dividends during the subsequent real estate auction procedure.