The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, at the time of preventing the Defendant from committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in the third degree of matrimonial relationship with the victim, and thus, the instant facts charged constitute an offense subject to prosecution subject to prosecution pursuant to Articles 354 and 328(2) of the Criminal Act. According to the written agreement submitted by the lower court, the victim’s withdrawal of the complaint against the Defendant is deemed to have been made. Therefore, the instant prosecution should be dismissed, and the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the legal principles as to relative precedent and the offense subject to prosecution subject to prosecution.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in August) is too unreasonable.

2. On January 21, 201, the Defendant stated that “Around January 21, 2011, the Defendant would have a victim D employed 30 million won as a preliminary payment, and if he/she became aware of employment, would return 30 million won again by the end of March.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to employ the victim's children, and the company that invested a large amount of money by the defendant was thought to use the above money in repayment of the defendant's debt around September 2010.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was immediately transferred from the victim to the bank account in the name of E (Account Number F).

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

3. The facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, and according to Articles 354 and 328(2) of the Criminal Act, in a case where a crime is committed between lineal blood relatives, spouse, relatives living together, family members living together, or relatives other than their spouse, a public prosecution may be instituted only upon a complaint of the victim.

However, according to the records, the defendant was married with K on November 23, 1974, and the agreement was married on March 15, 2013, and the victim was a large penalty of K.