사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendants received the official document from SP Corporation to “the guidance of the owner of H land, etc.’s compensation consultation”; and (b) did not submit the documents related to obtaining the right to compensation, such as letter of guarantee, certificate of cultivation confirmation, etc. even until the submission period; (c) at the time when the Defendants sold the vinyl located in Songpa-gu Seoul (hereinafter “the instant vinyl”) to the victims, M had already completed the report of the right to the instant vinyl and received compensation; (d) even if the victims sold it to the victims, it could be easily known that the victims could not acquire the right to occupy the instant vinyl or the right to sell commercial land due to the instant vinyl; and (e) the Defendants could sufficiently recognize the Defendants’ fraud in light of the fact that the Defendants filed an application for compensation for losses with respect to the vinyl located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the instant vinyl”).
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the instant facts charged.
2. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, received the “detailed statement of loss compensation” written by the owner of the instant vinyl as Defendant B, along with the official text of the “Notice of Consultation on the Compensation of the Owner of H, etc. for the Ownership of H, etc.,” which was acknowledged by the evidence as follows: (a) the Defendants heard that the relevant documents were normally submitted from the seller’s interest Es., an employee of the instant vinyl Corporation, and that the rights of Defendant B were registered.