사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged, despite the fact that the Defendant was promised to obtain a subcontract for the construction of apartment houses and the construction of glass from the FF Co., Ltd. and requested the victim to do so, and thus, did not have any criminal intent to obtain fraud, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence of April and surveillance of protection) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine whether the Defendant had the intent to commit the crime of defraudation of the facts by deception, and even though the Defendant had been awarded a subcontract for the window protection and glass construction from the past F.
However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances are as follows: ① at the time when the defendant requested the victim company to perform the instant construction work, the defendant was not awarded a subcontract for the construction work, ② the FF corporation was expected to receive a subcontract for the construction work; ② the F corporation was under subcontract for the construction work; ③ the defendant did not exchange the intent about the cost of the construction at the time when requesting the victim company to perform the instant construction work; ③ the victim company was not aware of the defendant before the instant construction work; ③ the victim company was not aware of the defendant before the instant construction work; and was expected to receive a subcontract for the construction work with the defendant’s horse; ④ the defendant actually operated F corporation.
Although we seem to have maintained a kind of relationship with L, the fact that it was not located in the location where it was promised to receive a subcontract for an exclusive construction contract from L, was not in the position where it was promised to receive a subcontract for an apartment (in fact, it was the business that was introduced by the M& director of F&C)
In full view of the foregoing, the Defendant is an apartment from FF corporation.