The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the provisions of Articles 361 and 328 of the Criminal Act, the crime of embezzlement between lineal blood relatives, spouse, relatives living together, family members living together, or their spouses shall be exempted, and the public prosecution may be instituted only when there is a complaint among other relatives. The nature of embezzlement under the Criminal Act is maintained even in cases where a punishment is aggravated under Article 3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”), and there is no express provision that Article 361 of the Criminal Act shall not be applied to the Special Economic Crimes Act, and it is also applicable to the crime of violation of Article 3(1) of the Special Economic Crimes Act.

Even according to the facts charged in this case, since the victim is the defendant's external relationship, the crime of violation of the Act on the Special Cases of this case due to embezzlement can be prosecuted only when a complaint is filed in light of the above legal principles. In this case, since the period of complaint is six months from the date on which the defendant becomes aware of the crime under Article 230 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the subsequent complaint is unlawful and invalid.

Therefore, the court below should, prior to making a judgment on the facts charged of this case, examine whether the victim's complaint of this case was filed within six months from the date on which the victim became aware of the offender, and if it is confirmed that the period was excessive, the court below should dismiss the prosecution in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Nevertheless, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found guilty of the facts charged in this case without taking the above measures. In such a case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the application of the special law to relatives, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the remainder.