사기등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is that the defendant prepared and received a certificate of borrowing (one right 90 pages out of two books of evidence) in addition to the investment agreement entered into with the victim in relation to the advance payment, and it is reasonable to see that the defendant is the borrowed money, not the borrowed money. It is reasonable to see that the defendant is the borrowed money, not the borrowed money. Although the defendant promised to pay the borrowed money from the victim in violation of the agreement and sell it in another place, and the proceeds from sale in violation of the agreement and the defendant voluntarily uses it, it is recognized that the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant of all the charges of fraud is erroneous.
The lower court convicted the Defendant of the charge of embezzlement, which is the facts charged in the instant case. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of each fraud among the facts charged in the instant case [2013 senior group1056], and the charge of each business obstruction [2013 senior group1078], and the Prosecutor appealed only with respect to the acquittal portion among the lower judgment.
Therefore, the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be deemed to have been exempted from the scope of the official defense between the parties. Therefore, the scope of the judgment of the court below shall be limited to the part which acquitted
Judgment
[2] Of the facts charged, the lower court determined that the Defendant was guilty of fraud listed in the paragraph (a) of 1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s Office, merely on November 2009, where the victim started to operate the instant Kim Factory from November 2009 to May 201, 202, determined that only the costs indicated in the facts charged among the costs incurred by the victim for the operation of the instant Kim Factory and the production of the Defendant’s real estate, among which the victim had started to independently operate the instant Kim Factory from around May 2012.