사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Judgment of the court below concerning mistake of facts
1. As to the facts constituting the crime described in paragraph (a) above, the Defendant transferred all the rights relationship concerning the instant construction to M as a health problem, and decided to acquire M with the food liability owed by M and the Defendant to M. Since the Defendant did not go to the construction site of this case any more, the Defendant did not intend to acquire the food of this case. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there was an error of misconception of facts. (b) In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, as it found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged and the summary of this part of the facts charged by the judgment of the court below are as follows: on February 2013, the Defendant stated that “The Defendant would settle all of the charges, and then would borrow 1 bonds later, if he was aware of it, as the representative director of the G house, who is the owner of the construction site, who will provide meals to the construction site owners,” and that “the payment will be made every month, if he would provide meals to the construction site owners.” On May 2, 2013, the Defendant would receive a demand from the victim for the payment of the unpaid meal costs from the victim at the above restaurant.”
However, as seen above, the Defendant was released from the prison immediately after the Defendant was released from the prison, and not only did not have any occupation but also did not have any particular property, and the FNNL also should be lent the full amount of expenses, including the cost of construction, to others, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the cost, even if he was provided with meals from the victim.
Ultimately, the Defendant is above.