사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
In light of the gist of the prosecutor's appeal reasons (unfair sentencing) that the amount obtained by the defendant reaches 66,810,000 won in total, did not recover damage, and the victim complained of a serious punishment against the defendant, etc., the sentence of the court below that sentenced the two years of suspended sentence in August is too uneasible and unfair.
Judgment
The crime of this case is not proper to be committed by the Defendant by deceiving 6,810,000 won as labor cost by falsely stating a person who does not actually work in the specification of daily labor cost payment while working as a person in charge of the field of construction in the victim Co., Ltd. (the victim Co., Ltd.) at the construction site. The Defendant consented to using 10,000,000 won out of the discounted bill discount amount of promissory notes issued on March 5, 2014 (RR) issued by the victim Co., Ltd.) as labor cost, but the Defendant embezzled it.
On June 9, 2014, the defendant filed a complaint and paid KRW 15,000,000 to the victim on June 9, 2014. This is because the defendant paid the amount of money that the defendant would not have paid to the victim, so the damage caused by the crime of this case was compensated for the above amount. However, the victim consented to the use of KRW 10,00,000 out of the discounted amount of the above promissory note as labor cost.
There is no obvious evidence to see.
The Defendant: (a) received a promissory note amounting to KRW 30,00,000 from the injured party; and (b) paid KRW 29,30,000 at a discount to the injured party on September 11, 2014, but returned the said original promissory note to the injured party for compensating for the damages caused by the instant crime; (c) however, even upon the Defendant’s assertion, the said promissory note number is “R” and the said number is equal to the bill number issued by the injured party on March 5, 2014; and (d) thus, the Defendant’s assertion is believed.