특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1, who misleads the Defendant of the fact, is entitled to receive subsidies from the Government, if the Defendant and the victim were to grant a license for the construction of electric power plants to D and the victim around January 2014 when he/she promoted a club business to build a Z power plant and operate an electric power generation business by building the Z power plant, along with C and D, the land of the victim H around January 2014.
There is an oral fact.
However, the Defendant, after consultation with D, voluntarily returned the application documents for business permission on April 2014, and renounced the above business. In light of the circumstances that D stated that it was stated in the court of the original instance that the victim had talked about the circumstances leading up to the abandonment to the victim after the end of the month after the end of the time, the victim was aware that the Defendant renounced the construction of the power plant around May 2014.
Therefore, on July 28, 2014, when the victim had been well aware that the defendant had already renounced the power plant construction business, the defendant is entitled to receive 30 billion won from the government, as stated in the facts charged, as stated in the facts charged.
“The circumstances of deception” were not the situation of deception.
In addition, in order to obtain a business license for the construction of a Korea power plant, there is sufficient authority to use a business site, and at the time, the Defendant was issued a written consent for the use of the land from the damaged party, who is the owner of the land located in Macheon City I, J, and M (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant land,” and when indicating the land located in AA, the Defendant was issued a written consent for the use of the land. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that the Defendant would transfer the ownership of the said land to the victim.
The defendant will give additional KRW 1 billion to the victim as stated in the facts charged.
There is no word “”.
As stated in the letter of agreement of this case, the defendant has the land price of 300,000 won per square day.