특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)
A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine in rejecting the content of the commitment without confirming the developments leading up to the preparation of the commitment against the victims who received the commitment of establishing a right to lease on a deposit basis by the prosecution.
B. The F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “F”) had only appearance such as attracting foreign capital by immediately repaying USD 30 million at a foreign bank for a year at a single-year short term.
This constitutes grounds for termination of a contract under Article 13(2)(1) of the Agreement entered into between Sungnam-si and E (hereinafter “E”) (hereinafter “E”).
As can be seen, this case has a vague expectation that the Defendant may pay construction cost through the pre-sale lease deposit and other loans received from the victims in a situation where the Defendant had no ability to attract foreign capital from the beginning of the beginning, and it can be recognized that the Defendant acquired the Defendant by fraud with about KRW 25.8 billion to the 49 victims.
Nevertheless, the court below did not recognize that the defendant is guilty of acquiring the money by deceit on sales in units and the return of deposit money.
The mistake of fact was determined by the court.
2. Determination:
A. Judgment 1 on the argument of misunderstanding the legal principles 1) The judgment of the court below did not state the terms and conditions of the establishment of chonsegwon in the contract for occupation and use of F incidental facilities, and it is difficult for the lessee, who has received the letter of undertaking, to understand the progress or date of the preparation of the letter of undertaking.
According to the F. K's statement, the above letter of undertaking appears to have been prepared at the request of the contractors for partial lease after the F.
In consideration of the above circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to recognize that the letter of undertaking was prepared as a means of defraudation.