특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the victims and W, X, Y, V's investigation agency or the court below's testimony, etc., the court below found that the defendant's act of purchasing the first machine that the defendant claimed (hereinafter "I machine") and conducting a mobile phone processing business, there is no possibility of large-scale receipt of orders from Samsung Electronic or EL Electronic, and that the first machine for large-scale production is not used, and ③ the defendant manufactured the first machine under the same principle without removing the high warranty rate of the H machine that was manufactured before the instant agreement (hereinafter "H machine"), and thus, it could sufficiently be predicted that the defect rate of the first machine was high. However, the court below found the victims who could not know about the mobile phone processing business without concealing such fact, and found the defendant not guilty of the fact that the defendant's act of using the first machine was a large amount of money, which could affect the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the defendant's act of fraudulent act."
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the representative director of Ansan and mobile phone case processing company F (hereinafter “F”).
F From 200 to Germany's OBE processing and delivery of the internal test, however, as the transaction performance has decreased, F recorded the deficit amounting to KRW 13,4150,000 in 205 and KRW 200,000 in 206, and the mobile phone case processing is difficult to manage the company.