beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Around August 16, 2013, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant, at the Defendant’s office located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, sent a phone call to the victim D, who is the Defendant’s friendship, and was unable to pay the said money due to the lack of money; (b) the president, who paid the said money, borrowed the money of KRW 50 million to E; (c) the president, who paid the said money, provided that he/she would have paid the said money again; and (d) he/she provided the Plaintiff with a full-time payment of KRW 20 million to E. That said, if he/she borrowed the money to E, he/she would receive the money again from the former bank by the end of August.
However, the Defendant did not receive a promise to lend KRW 50 million or KRW 100 million from E, and was willing to lend money from the victim to repay other debts, and even if the debt exceeds KRW 700 million at the time, there was no intention or ability to repay money as a promise even if he borrowed money from the victim.
The Defendant received 15 million won from the victim to the bank account of the Defendant.
Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.
2. When a crime which falls under Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act and is committed between lineal blood relatives, spouse, relatives living together, family members living together, or relatives other than their spouse under Articles 354 and 328 (2) of the same Act is committed, the prosecution against the above facts charged shall be instituted only upon the complaint of the victim;
According to each description of the case, family relation certificate, removed copy, and petition, the defendant's spouse as the victim D and the victim is a relative relative within the fourth degree not living together with the defendant's spouse. The victim can recognize the fact that the victim revoked the complaint against the defendant on May 8, 2014 after the indictment of this case. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act.