The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. On April 6, 2015, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant shall pay the victim D the amount of KRW 1,500,000 per month to the Defendant’s house located in the wife population C, and the principal shall be repaid until October 2015, if the Defendant loaned KRW 35,000,000 to the above gas station.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the Defendant was only liable for the total amount of KRW 165 million, including unpaid taxes and personal debts, immediately after being released from the prison at the time, and did not have the ability to repay the said amount even if he/she borrowed money from the injured party without any particular occupation or property. In addition, the Defendant merely thought that most of the money borrowed from the injured party was used for his/her own cost of living or for the purpose of paying his/her personal debts, and did not have any intent to invest in the gas station.

The Defendant received a total of KRW 35 million from the victimized party to April 7, 2015 to the corporate bank account in the name of a person living together with the Defendant, who was employed by the Defendant from April 6, 2015 to April 7, 2015.

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

2. The facts charged in this part of the judgment are the crimes falling under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, which are those falling under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, and which are not living together with relatives under Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act, which are applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 354 of the Criminal Act, and are subject to prosecution only when the victim files a complaint

According to the records, the defendant is acknowledged as having legal relationship with the victim D as an external relative (see Article 777 of the Civil Act) and did not live together with the victim D, and the victim D’s revocation of the complaint against the defendant on October 24, 2017, which was after the public prosecution of this case was instituted. Therefore, the facts charged in this part of the facts charged constitute revocation of complaint against an offense subject to victim’s complaint, and thus, the public prosecution is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.