beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (the Defendants) was as follows: (a) although the Defendant (the Defendants) knew of the facts charged in this case on the early June 2009, the instant complaint was filed only during the period of January 2010 when six months elapsed since then, even though he knew of the facts charged in this case on the early June 2009, and thus, (b) the said complaint was unlawful after the lapse of the period of filing the complaint; (c) however, (d) the lower court erred by misapprehending this,
2. Determination
A. The main sentence of Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "no complaint shall be filed after the lapse of six months from the date on which a person becomes aware of a crime subject to victim's complaint," which means that a person who becomes aware of a crime becomes aware of a crime is aware of a crime to the extent that the person who has filed the complaint is able to file the complaint, and that a person who has filed the complaint is aware of a crime subject to victim's complaint."
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3106 Decided October 9, 2001 and Supreme Court Decision 2010Do4680 Decided July 15, 201, etc.) B.
In light of the above legal principles, the records revealed that ① Defendant A resided and lives together with Defendant A on June 1, 2004 after the filing of the marriage report with Defendant D on June 1, 2004; ② Defendant was living separately from Defendant A on April 2009; ② Defendant was sexual intercourse as indicated in the facts charged on May 28, 2009 and around May 31, 2009; Defendant A kept the image with his cellular phone (see, e.g., 124, 125 pages) having a camera function at the time of the above sexual intercourse with Defendant A; ③ Meanwhile, Defendant A was doubtful about Defendant A’s sexual intercourse at the time of his stay with Defendant A; on the other hand, Defendant A was suspected of having been living with Defendant A on April 21, 2009.
5. On June 15, 2009, the Defendants were suspected of living together with Defendant B after dividing them with Defendant B via the Internet Messenger site, and around June 14, 2009.