사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal consistently states that the victim had consistently expressed that at the time of the instant case, the Defendant engaged in the business related to the reconstruction of Daegu F, and the Defendant also recognized that the victim provided an explanation related to the reconstruction at a “D” restaurant located in Macheon-si, Jungcheon-si, 201, and that the consistent statement of C also complies with it. In light of the above, it is recognized that the Defendant provided a deceptive act related to the reconstruction to the victim via C.
In addition, in light of the fact that the defendant borrowed money in relation to the Daegu FF reconstruction, and C plays the role of transmitting the explanation of the defendant, the causal relationship between the defendant's deception and the victim's act of disposal is recognized.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous and erroneous.
2. Determination
A. On June 201, the summary of the facts charged stated in the facts charged that the Defendant: (a) at the “D’ restaurant for the operation of the C, which is located in the Hacheon-si, Mancheon-si; (b) was an agent for the implementation of the LF reconstruction project; (c) was designated as the contractor; and (d) was in progress with the reconstruction management and disposal; and (c) was in need of expenses to proceed with the reconstruction; (d) at least three months or six months; (b) was able to receive the funds by completing reconstruction; (c) was falsely stated that he/she would have repaid money within six months; and (d) he/she would also pay interest to the victim E again through the said C, that he/she would have paid KRW 100 million to the victim E.
However, in the course of rebuilding project, the defendant was unable to obtain any specific income, unlike the defendant's explanation, and the project was not selected as a contractor for the Daegu Freging project.