The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main text of Article 230(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not require an accusation after the lapse of six months from the date when he becomes aware of the offender in relation to an offense subject to prosecution subject to complaint.

"A person who has become aware of a crime" means a conclusive perception of facts that the person who has the right to file a complaint has suffered from a crime subject to victim's complaint.

Around July 10, 2015, the victim was aware of the fact that he/she was guilty of the defendant's behavior from L around July 10, 2015, and the victim was consulted by finding a certified judicial scrivener at that time. However, in light of the fact that L was present at the court below on July 10, 2015 and testified that there was no false statement about the victim's behavior about the victim's behavior on July 10, 2015, considering that there was no false statement about the victim's behavior, the victim testified around July 10, 2015.

must be viewed.

On or around October 2014, the victim's complaint could have been filed.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the prosecution on the ground of the excessive filing period is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2. The lower court, on October 2014, determined that the victim was aware of the fact of deception by the Defendant at the latest around October 2014.

It is difficult to recognize that the victim's complaint against the defendant filed on July 16, 2015 by the evidence presented by the prosecutor is a lawful complaint before the expiration of the period for filing the complaint, and the indictment procedure of this case is unlawful and based on an incidental legal complaint is governed by the law.