2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the representative of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) which operates the interior of the salesroom, and the victim C is the representative of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) who manufactures and installs a household with the approval from the said company.

On June 2014, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant would immediately grant the cost of construction to the victim, after completing construction works, in the building E-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si.”

However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to pay the price even if the victim completes the human test work.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, had the victim do so from June 2014 to December 2014, 2014, and caused the victim to do so, as shown in the list of crimes in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant construction”) but did not grant the construction cost, thereby acquiring property benefits equivalent to KRW 156,889,800 in total.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant committed deception as to the payment of construction cost only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the defrauded or the criminal intent was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

(1) A contract for a construction project shall be executed between B and D in which the defendant is the representative and the victim is the representative.