사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal H’s testimony at the lower court is at a distance between the date and time stated in the facts charged, so it is difficult to say that the testimony at the lower court is more reliable than the statement at an investigation agency that did not, and the police officer who investigated the Defendant testified in the lower court to the effect that the Defendant testified to the effect that only the participants in the crime were aware of the facts charged, and that the Defendant had the record of the same kind of crime, etc., the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the contrary, on the contrary that the Defendant had proved that he committed the crime as stated in the
2. Determination:
A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) in collusion with D and E (one name F), the Defendant did not intend to work at a marina business establishment even if he received the prepaid money; and (b) conspired to acquire the prepaid money by means of escape immediately after the receipt of the prepaid money.
Accordingly, Defendant and E: (a) around April 4, 201, around the G Apartment-si’s apartment parking lot, Defendant and E: (b) stated that “the victim would perform work at the seat of 11,600,000 won in advance to the present work establishment; (c) the victim remitted KRW 11,60,000 to the passbook in the name of E on the same day; (d) the victim transferred the same day to the head of Tong in the name of E, and (e) the victim got off and escaped from the said apartment.
As such, the Defendant, D, and E conspiredd with the victim to receive the remittance of KRW 11,60,000 from the victim for advance payment.
B. The only evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in the judgment below is the only evidence of H's police statement. However, even according to the above statement of statement, H's category as a person who acquired the Defendant's prepaid money is considered as a person who acquired the Defendant's prepaid money, and only 16 million won from the Defendant's photograph, which is the police computer network.