특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In fact-finding Defendant 1: (a) as the gold-type production price for which priority is set and paid first due to insufficient funds for the production of gold-type as the relationship in which the price for the production of gold is paid by installments, it is nothing more than the production of gold-type which is essential for the production of products; and (b) the gold-type is designed to produce business profits in the future, but it is not possible to produce the gold-type with the wind to make an investment for the extension of production facilities without producing the gold-type due to the promotion of the expansion of facilities and equipment of the victim company. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was a criminal intent by deception by the Defendant. Therefore, even though the verdict of innocence should be rendered on all the facts charged of the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the part of the facts charged, recognizing that there was a criminal intention by defraudation as to the amount equivalent to the amount that the gold-type has not been produced, there is an error of mistake of facts.
B. Prosecutor 1) In the event that a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles agreed with the victim company to produce a gold-type, and only some of the agreed gold-type production costs were produced and used for any purpose other than not agreed with the victim company, the defendant's act constitutes a crime of fraud, and the full amount of the gold-type production costs received from the victim company is the amount of damage caused by fraud. Nevertheless, there is insufficient evidence to regard it as the amount corresponding to the gold-type amount actually produced, the judgment below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. 2) In the event that the above sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unjustifiable and unjust.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant is also aware of the crime of defraudation in the lower court’s reasoning of appeal.