사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant was aware that the contract was terminated with respect to the removal work among the construction works for composite apartments in Busan Shipping Daegu L, Daegu (hereinafter “instant removal work”), which was concluded on January 9, 2008 between C (hereinafter “C”) and K, and upon obtaining the consent or approval from H, the main owner of the Plaintiff’s actual inspection, the Defendant entered into a new contract for the removal work in the name of the victim and C, and received KRW 120 million from the damaged party in return for the said contract. As such, the Defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who was the representative director of C with real estate development, consulting, etc. for business purposes.
On July 1, 201, the Defendant: “A victim E who carries out a removal project at the office located in the office located in the Busan Northern District Ddong 305, the Defendant entered into a service contract with the private party to the implementation of the project with the Busan Seodong Dadong Dadong 305; the Defendant would have ordered removal works and site creation works worth KRW 50 million at the prime office; the Corporation may do so from October 201 to around September 1, 201; and the Defendant was granted KRW 100,000,000 to the representative director around September 5, 201, and KRW 30,000,000,000,000 to the office; however, on August 11, 2011, the implementation company rejected the application for approval for the removal of the adjoining project site on February 28, 201, and was not subject to consultation with the representative director on February 1, 2012.