사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (common to the Defendants)
A. The G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) entered into a business agreement with the Ministry of National Defense, public institutions, and private enterprises to vicariously execute the MI supply contract with the M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”), and received deposits worth KRW 50 million in order to secure the payment of fees.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found M guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that M did not enter into the I supply contract with the Ministry of National Defense is erroneous and has affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (Defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service, 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 80 hours of community service, 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. On April 18, 2013, the Defendants made a false statement in the G Office operated by the Defendants located in the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F1st Group that “Around April 18, 2013, the Defendants would be able to supply I to the Ministry of National Defense, and would pay 50 million won to the Ministry of National Defense as deposit to secure the fees for the supply of I to the Ministry of National Defense.”
However, in fact, the I project of the Ministry of National Defense was conducted as a pilot project in 2014, and the I project was conducted by competitive bidding, so there was no intention or ability to allow the defendants to proceed with the I project of the Ministry of National Defense through the connection of the Ministry of National Defense.
On June 3, 2013, the Defendants conspired to induce the victim and received delivery of KRW 50 million to the new bank account (J) in the name of G as deposit money from the injured party.
B. The lower court, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, determined that the victim’s statement is trustable, and the Defendants’ statement.