특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal: In light of the fact that the defendant used half of the funds received from the victim company in a manner different from the name of the delivery, and the economic situation of the defendant at the time was not good, the defendant did not have the intent and ability to supply merchandise coupons according to the agreement with the victim company.
In addition, unlike the defendant's defense that the expression of H to help the additional project was believed and led to the agreement with the victim, H did not have a position to help the additional project.
Considering the above, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, although there is sufficient evidence to find the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, even though having no intent and capacity, provided the director G of the victim company with the right to the principal product at a price below the par value, in spite of the lack of the intention and capacity of the Defendant, he/she would be entitled to the supply of the principal product right at a price above the face value. Since the conclusion of a contract for the supply of the promotional products with the Korea Johson Co., Ltd. is expected to have a considerable sales by concluding a contract for the supply of the promotional products, he/she shall deposit KRW 500 million into the performance
B. The defendant asserts the above facts charged as follows.
In other words, the Defendant, at a discounted price of at least 10%, could be predicted by the enemy. However, the head of the headquarters of the victim company, who was the head of the headquarters of the headquarters of the victim company, received an explanation from H that “the victim company operates the sales proceeds to pay the sales proceeds in lump sum to other companies, thereby opening the enemy, and allowing the victim company to pay the proceeds in the future in continuous transactions with the victim company,” and made transactions with the victim company.
However, the victim company unilaterally changes the terms of discount and the fee to the defendant, and requires deposit of KRW 500 million, which has not been agreed upon.