사기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is merely that the Defendant sold the right to apply for parcelling-out to K upon A’s request, and there was no conspiracy for fraud, and the SH Corporation received all proceeds from the parcelling-out price set by K, and thus, it did not incur any property damage, the judgment below convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the relationship of public offering or the occurrence of damage in fraud.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion that there was no conspiracy to commit a crime, the conspiracy is not required under the relevant legal principles, but is a combination of two or more persons to realize a crime through the joint processing of a crime. Thus, if the conspiracy is established in order or impliedly, the conspiracy is established if the two or more persons intend to commit a crime, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of the crime, are held liable as a joint principal offender for the other accomplices. Therefore, even if the conspiracy to commit a crime of fraud had been aware of the method of deception in detail, the conspiracy is not denied (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do1706, Sept. 12, 1997). 2) According to the judgment of the court below on the Defendant’s assertion and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the following facts are acknowledged.
(1) The Defendant has sold and sold the application form for parcelling-out relating to the urban planning project for multi-years.
② In the prosecutorial investigation, around November 2004, the Defendant confirmed the content of the instant Proad Expansion Works in relation to the next year’s urban planning project at the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Library, and sought A who is a public official, at any time and at any time, asked at the time when the said project is carried out.
(3) The accused shall be related to the above works.