사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not actually spent KRW 450,000,00 in the dry field cultivated by O, and did not submit data on the expenditure details such as nutritions and expenses for purchase of pesticide products. The witness V of the lower court made a false statement by the owner of the Defendants. Thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of the instant charges on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending that the Defendant was not bad on September 2009 of the dry field of the instant dry field, on the sole basis of the statement of the above V, etc. difficult to believe.
2. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendants can recognize the Defendants’ deception.
In other words, when the defendants show a good distribution field with a good production, and the complainant actually concluded a contract at a certain point, whether the spawn and the spawn were ordered to enter into a contract for the distribution field where the shipment is impossible before the drilling, and whether the defendants made a false statement in determining the price for the 1/2 shares out of the O's distribution field as KRW 2.5 million. However, it is difficult to view that the defendants deceiving the complainant to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt for the following reasons.
According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, where the dry field of a paddy field that was actually entered into an agreement with the complainant is different from the dry field that was entered into a contract with the complainant, ① The dry field of a paddy field that the complainant claimed that it was designated before the contract was located in the U.S. of Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-gun, whereas the “O dry field of a dry field” described in the joint contract (hereinafter “the dry field of a dry field of a ship”) is located in M of the same Gun where it was cultivated by O. However, the complainant, who did not have any tenant or lot number at the time of opening a dry field with the Defendants before the contract, was aware of the dry field of this case as U.S. field of a dry field.