beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The Defendant charged with the instant charges by phoneing the victim C, who was in the Hesan-si in April 2008, to the police officer, and repaid the instant charges within three months at the latest, when he/she lent the money to the victim C.
“A false representation was made.”
However, in fact, the Defendant was liable to repay the amount of KRW 60 million to the Saemaul Bank, and there was no intention or ability to repay the amount within three months even if the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party, because it was thought that the Defendant had made an investment in real estate by borrowing money without his own funds.
Around April 25, 2008, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) transferred KRW 32.5 million to the Saemaul Treasury account in the name of the Defendant from the victim; (c) around April 25, 2008, to the money borrowed.
Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.
2. The facts charged in this case are crimes falling under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, and according to the evidence adopted and investigated by the court, the facts of kinship between the defendant and the victim who did not live in the fourth degree of relationship are acknowledged. Thus, it constitutes an offense subject to victim’s complaint pursuant to Articles 354 and 328(2) of the Criminal Act.
Article 230 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall not file a complaint after the lapse of six months from the date on which he becomes aware of the offender in relation to an offense subject to victim's complaint.
In light of the above legal principles, the term "the person who becomes aware of an offender" means that the person who has the right to file a complaint knows criminal facts and criminal facts to the extent that the person who has the right to file a complaint can file a complaint, and that the person having the right to file a complaint knows criminal facts (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3106, Oct. 9, 2001, etc.). Considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by the court of this case, in light of the above legal principles, the victim is the facts charged in this case until the end of 2014.