[1] The meaning of "the day on which he becomes aware of the offender" under Article 230 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[2] In a case where only the defendant filed an appeal against a part of a single comprehensive offense, whether the court of final appeal can adjudicate on the part of a judgment of innocence or dismissal of prosecution in addition to the conviction (negative)

[1] "Date of becoming aware of a person who committed a crime" under Article 230 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to the date when the person who became aware of the offender after the completion of the crime. Even if the person who filed a complaint became aware of the offender during the continuance of the crime, it cannot be deemed that the period for filing a complaint subject to victim's complaint under the above provision has run immediately since that day. In such a case, the period for filing a complaint shall be calculated from the time when the crime was committed, and in a case of a blanket crime such as business that is naturally anticipated to repeat the same act, the entire criminal act has been completed when the last

[2] In a case where only a part of the inclusive crime is found guilty, if the defendant only appealed against the guilty part, but the prosecutor did not appeal against the part which was found not guilty or dismissed, the portion other than the conviction by the principle of no appeal shall be judged by the court of final appeal. However, the part is already judged to be remanded to the court of final appeal, but it is in fact withdrawn from the object of an attack and defense between the parties, and thus, it cannot be determined by the court of final appeal

[1] Article 230 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 384 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 90Do2820 delivered on March 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1203) Supreme Court Decision 97Do1211 delivered on August 22, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2970)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Dat-law

Daegu District Court Decision 2002No1772 Delivered on July 20, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

1. "Date of becoming aware of a person who committed a crime" under Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to the date when the person who became aware of a crime after the completion of the criminal act. Even if the person who filed a complaint became aware of the criminal during the continuance of the criminal act, the period for filing a complaint subject to victim's complaint cannot be deemed to have run immediately from that day, and in such a case, the period for filing a complaint shall be calculated from the time when the criminal act was completed, and in a case of a blanket crime such as business that is naturally anticipated to be repeated of the same act, the entire criminal act should be deemed to have

In light of the above legal principles, it is proper that the court below rejected the defendant's assertion as to the validity of the complaint of this case, namely, that the victims came to know that he was a criminal on March 31, 199 after the registration of a utility model right for the perjury. However, since the defendant was filed on January 6, 200 when the six-month period expires, it should be more than the six-month period, it should not be recognized as the validity of the above complaint as to crimes after July 7, 1999, which were 6 months retroactively from the above point of time. It is difficult to view that the judgment of the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to calculating the period of comprehensive crimes subject to complaint of victim's complaint of this case as alleged in the ground of appeal No. 1, and as to the crimes committed before the above 20-month period from the above point of time to the 19-month period, the court below did not dismiss the part of the court below's judgment as to the defendant's conviction of this case 20-month period from the judgment was not dismissed.

2. The court below found that the victims' act of production of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the crime of the victim

3. In addition, according to the records, the date and time when the victims filed a complaint against the defendant and the non-indicted on January 6, 200, and the fact that the defendant sold the counter-indicted to a third party other than the non-indicted. Thus, the criminal facts of the judgment of the court below that the defendant produced the counter-indicted to the non-indicted et al. from November 11, 1999 to May 2000 and sold it to the non-indicted et al. are known that the non-indicted et al. was the legitimate owner of the utility model right, and that the victims came to know that the non-indicted et al. was the legitimate owner of the utility model right, and that the sale of the counter-indicted was suspended immediately. Accordingly, the third ground for appeal

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)