The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

The Defendant, from February 2010 to May 2010, was in charge of business and accounting affairs in C (school meal service companies) operated by the victim B from February 2, 2010 to around February 2010.

On February 24, 2010, the Defendant arbitrarily used 12,763,140 won in total over 10 times from the date of the crime list to April 8, 2010, as in the list of crimes, while managing a cooperative account in the name of the victim B, while keeping the funds owned by the victim in the course of business, in order to pay the Defendant’s personal debts, the Defendant transferred KRW 2,00,000 to the account in the name of F in order to pay the Defendant’s personal debts.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property owned by the victim in the course of business.

Judgment

According to Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act, the crime of occupational embezzlement is a crime falling under Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act, which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 361 of the Criminal Act, and Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 361 of the Criminal Act provides that a public prosecution may be instituted only upon the complaint of the injured party if the injured party and the offender have a relationship of kinship as prescribed by

According to the records, since the defendant and the victim's spouse are in a high-class relationship, the defendant and the victim can be recognized as a relative by marriage in the fourth degree, so they have such relationship as prescribed in the above provision.

However, according to the written complaint submitted by the victim to an investigative agency, the victim should be deemed to have become aware of the offender at least around May 2010. As such, the above written complaint filed on October 25, 2018, which was extremely apparent as the lapse of six months, is unlawful as it was filed subsequent to the expiration of the period for filing the complaint.

Thus, the public prosecution of this case also constitutes a case where the procedure of prosecution is invalid in violation of the provisions of law, and thus, the public prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.