사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was known to the effect that the Defendant did not have the right to implement the project of the H Site Development Project in the K Operation, and acquired money by receiving money from the injured party.
In doing so, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
Judgment
In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged of this case and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Of the facts charged in this case, there is only the victim and K investigation agency and each statement in this court are sufficient evidence that the defendant had already been aware of the fact that he did not have the right to implement the project of the H Site Creation Corporation of this case as the main premise that constitutes the defendant's fraud among the facts charged in this case, and that he did not have the right to implement the project of the H Site Construction Corporation.
In other words, the standard contract for private construction work concluded between the defendant and the KCAB at the request of the defendant and the KCAI was prepared in accordance with the kind of relationship between the defendant and the KCAB, which can be known from the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court.
The construction contract price (19.8 billion won) is very large, and there is no strong relationship between the defendant and K, and L reclamation work, which is a specific business that is a cause for K to request the preparation of the above contract in order to produce the defendant's false performance, has already been concluded on December 30, 2013, which is the date of the preparation of the above standard contract, on January 13, 2014, which is the date of the preparation of the above standard contract, and most of the funds that the defendant has received from damage, actually spent at the joint office personnel expenses of the defendant and K, and the defendant and K were present.
M.N. All M.N.