사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In light of (1) the victim’s career and experience, and the victim directly visited the factory and invested a large amount of money with regard to the crime of fraud, Defendant 1’s act does not constitute deception of fraud.
(2) Even if not,
In light of the prior circumstances, there is no relation between the defendant's deception and the victim's disposal act.
(3) The Defendant had the intent to pay the investment from the injured party at the time of receiving the investment money and had the ability to pay due to the development of the company. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud.
B) As to the crime of dispatch, (1) the Defendant would create the right to collateral security against the victim.
In light of the foregoing, the Defendant is not in the position of “a person who administers another’s business”, since the obligation to protect and manage the victim’s property in relation to the victim cannot be deemed to form a fiduciary relationship with a typical intrinsic substance.
(2) In light of the fact that the injured party did not issue necessary documents, such as a certificate of seal imprint, and the victim prepared a fair deed, etc., the Defendant’s failure to create a right to collateral security does not constitute a violation of his/her duty.
(3) The first priority cannot be deemed as an act of breach of trust by setting up a senior mortgage on a person who bears a debt.
(4) In light of the preceding circumstances, the Defendant did not have the intention of breach of trust.
(5) Even if the Defendant first set up the right to collateral with H, the remaining collateral value of the E company was not less than KRW 100 million, and there was no risk of damage or damage.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor 1) The evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the acquittal portion as stated in the judgment below is examined.