사기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: ① at the time, the defendant explained the victim G in advance the poor financial standing and franchise business status of the defendant, but G knew that the three enterprises are competing in order to get the franchise franchise franchise business store in order to get a contract, and first, to do so, he used the test to deposit 50 million won with the defendant as the defect security deposit for the defect security deposit for the defendant, and then used it as the franchise business expenses to make the defendant deposit for the work more than 50 million won if the operation of the project is normal later, and at the request of the defendant to request the construction to grant the money first after receiving it, he did not contract the franchise construction as the business failure after receiving it, and ② even if this does not belong to the defendant's fraudulent act, even if it does not belong to the money, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts against the defendant, but there is no causation between the act of deception and the act of disposal.
2. The defendant and his defense counsel argued the same as the argument of mistake of facts in the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail in the "grounds for the crime of oil" column. In addition to the above judgment of the court below, G did not have any way to face with the defendant before he becomes aware of L's and E's E's E's E's E's E's E's E's E's franchise business by introducing L around August 2010, and ② contrary to the defendant's assertion, G listen to the statement that the defendant should transfer the E's E's E's E's E's E's E's E's E's E' business competition and the Seoul area as a package deposit to G as a whole.