사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant in this case had liquidated the partnership relationship with the victim E on June 201, but it was committed as if the partnership relationship with the victim continued with the victim and it was ordered to order C to place a remote area with the victim, and it was gained profit from the defendant to be exempted from the defendant's liability to C by means of receiving remote areas from the victim, and that there was a deceptive act in the form of indirect principal offense using C as an instrument, but the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
2. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is that the Defendant, on July 21, 201, was urged to pay KRW 100,000 (16,700,000,000) of Chinese money from C (name D of China), a Chinese policeman, to engage in the export business of a remote area in China, and that “F, as if the Defendant was a company, who is operating the victim of a remote area exporting company of a remote area, orders C to pay 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00).
However, the facts are that the Defendant engaged in a business with the victim only from October 2010 to June 201, and thereafter, the Defendant did not have the right to repay the Defendant’s debt in lieu of F’s remote area because the Defendant did not have any right such as the victim or the above F’s credit, etc. after settling the partnership, and there was no intention or ability to pay in lieu of F’s remote area.
Ultimately, the Defendant, as seen above, deceiving the victim through C, and let C export the remote area equivalent to the above bill from the victim to C, thereby exempting the Defendant from performing his/her obligation to C.