사기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) was only delivered to the J upon the request of the Malaysia Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SDR”) and the Malaysian Government’s domestic company that can deliver the street, etc. ordered by the Malaysian Government from F that operates the local G corporation of Malaysia, and there was no direct deception of the victim E.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant deceivings the victim as indicated in the judgment below and caused F to receive money in the name of down payment, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant believed F only to the speech of F and delivered F, as it is, the F’s explanation, to K as it is.
Therefore, there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts in the judgment below, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.
The victim consistently agreed to mediate the delivery of ELD street street, etc. between the Defendant and the Defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and the Defendant: (a) agreed to arrange the delivery of ELD street, etc. to the local corporation of SamsungS Malaysia; (b) the victim prepared an agreement (Evidence No. 32 pages of the evidence record, hereinafter “instant agreement”) to allow the delivery of 80 million street, etc. on the face of the contract deposit, and (c) the victim did not transfer 20 million won if the contract with SamsungS was not entered into with the investigation agency.
The agreement of this case stipulates that the defendant is a person who has been granted the right of legitimate brokerage consulting from Malaysia G and SamsungS local corporations, and the defendant is paid KRW 100,000 to brokerage and consulting costs, and this shall be paid within the payment period.