사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by imprisonment for ten months.
except that this shall not apply.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) In the process of concluding an additional construction contract, the Defendants are entitled to the victim E-proving the right to request a remedy for the construction cost (hereinafter “victim E-proving”).
() The amount obtained by deceit from the above victim was KRW 26 million (the amount calculated by subtracting KRW 26,730,000 which was actually paid to the subcontractor in connection with the above additional construction work from KRW 52,80,000), but the lower court acknowledged the establishment of fraud only for the “amount obtained by deceit” on the ground that the said victim was aware that the above additional construction work would take place by means of subcontract at the time of entering into the additional construction contract, and that the said additional construction work could not be recognized as the amount obtained by deceit, and that the amount cannot be known. This is a misunderstanding of the nature and circumstances of the additional construction work cost and misapprehending the legal principles as to calculation of the amount of damage caused by fraud. (2) According to the consistent statement of the Defendant B, the Defendants received KRW 10,000,000 from January 5, 2012 and KRW 20,000,000 from February 8, 2012, the lower court acquitted each of the above criminal facts on the following grounds.
This is a misunderstanding of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (the defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 50 million won additional collection, 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unfeasible and unfair.
2. Determination:
A. As to the assertion on fraud, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged, on March 2012, 2012, deemed that the F building remodeling construction owned by the victim’s subdivision (hereinafter “instant construction”).
3) As to the Do’s additional central control device construction (hereinafter “instant additional construction”)
After being invited to claim for the payment in return for the actual amount.