beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In full view of the various indirect circumstances, such as the relationship between the defendant and G, the relationship between the defendant and the defendant, the defendant's speech against F, and the place of using the damaged amount, which are revealed through the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of the facts), even though the defendant was fully aware of the fact that the defendant, in collusion with G, by deceiving F as if he would receive a visa for small-value investment, by deceiving F as if he would receive a visa, by deceiving him, the court below erred in finding the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case where the defendant conspired with G, thereby
2. Determination
A. After finding facts as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) although the Defendant had a significant status in M, I, and E, each of the above companies was mainly responsible for the support of L’s patent-related lawsuits; and (b) there was a gap between L and her South Korea.
G appears to have the authority to lead the above project, ② A led the establishment of the above company, and its main work is deemed to have been conducted in the United States. The defendant resided in Korea and was in charge of litigation support and attraction of investments, ③ Q et al. in the attorney-at-law office located in the United States in the United States of America, while combining with G and full-time work with G and engaging in the business of issuing visa as well as the business of issuing visa. The defendant showed at the I office that Q et al. conducted the business of issuing visa as above, and introduced Q et al. to F who was asked for the study method of his child, ④ Q was requested by Q et al. to conduct the business of issuing visa E-2 visa to F, and the name of F was established, and the bank account was opened in the name of the above company, ⑤ The F did not transfer funds to the non-subsidiary to the defendant, but did not notify the defendant of the transfer to 30 million won in the name of the account of the defendant.