사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts), the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case, despite the fact that the defendant could have deceiving the victims and defraud each money from the victims, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio the first facts charged which the court below found not guilty as the primary facts charged. In the name of the conjunctive crime, “the violation of trust” under Article 357(1) of the former Criminal Act, “Articles 37 and 39(1) of the Criminal Act,” and “Article 37 and 39(1) of the same Act” under the Act on the Preliminary Application of the same Act, the conjunctive facts charged are added to the following [re-written judgment], and the judgment of the court below was changed to the subject of the judgment by permitting it, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any further.
However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the argument of mistake of facts about the primary facts charged by the prosecutor is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this will be examined below.
3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts as to the primary facts charged
A. The summary of the primary charge is that the Defendant, while working in the C Business Management Team from September 2014 to September 2015, 2015, was engaged in the management of the E sales facilityF in Jin-si.
The Defendant, around May 21, 2015, at the above E around May 21, 2015, the victim H, the operator of G located in the company, “in order to maintain the occupancy and use contract, must be provided with E employees, and the amount needed for entertainment expenses, etc., should not be provided with money.
“A false representation was made.”
However, in fact, since the contract with the victim was already completed, it could not affect whether the victim was a visit with the E employee, etc., and the defendant was the defendant.