사기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant received KRW 120 million from the victim with the cost of production of the documentary mall in this case, as indicated in the facts charged of this case, and brought the Defendant with the title of royalties of KRW 63 million, excluding KRW 57 million actually used for the production of the documentary mall in this case, but it does not constitute deceiving and deceiving the victim in light of the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
① Since there was no fact that the Defendant was requested by the victim to report the details of expenses incurred in the production of the documentary submere in this case or the details of expenses incurred therein, the Defendant is merely exempted from manufacturing the documentary submere to the extent of the above amount, and there was no obligation to disclose or notify the production cost.
② Since the victim determined that the CBD’s economic value was equivalent to KRW 120,000,000, the Defendant paid KRW 120,000 to the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant deceivings the victim.
③ The Defendant merely stated that it is necessary for the victim to disclose his/her own technology, including the cost for disclosing his/her technology and participating in the production, in addition to the amount actually used for the production of the documentary mall of this case, and that it is not necessary to collect the difference from the victim by intentionally withdrawing the amount.
④ The amount of the first estimate for the documentary submeral of this case is KRW 81,939,800, and the production cost was reduced to KRW 57 million by the Defendant’s efforts, such as directly participating in the production of the documentary submeral of this case and disclosing technology. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the amount acquired by the Defendant is KRW 6,300,000, which deducts the above KRW 57 million paid to the Defendant by the victim.
(5) A defendant;