beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The prosecutor of the grounds of appeal asserts that the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant was not guilty of the charges of this case on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant acquired steel materials equivalent to KRW 112,328,30 from the complainants by deceiving the complainants without the intention of repayment or ability, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
2. Determination
A. On January 9, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment by the Changwon District Court for the crime of occupational embezzlement, etc., and was released on May 20, 2010 during the execution of the sentence, and the parole period was expired on August 21, 2010, and the Defendant is the representative of the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) for the purpose of construction work business, etc. located in Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”).
On February 2, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “The Defendant would pay monthly the price for steel materials necessary for the production of cream, if the Defendant supplied the steel materials to E companies, which are suppliers of building materials, such as steel materials, and the complainants operating the F (State) at the Defendant Company’s office.”
However, in the process of acquiring the additional plant at the time, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the above amount every month even if he was supplied with steel materials from the complainant, because the financial situation was not good, such as the amount of bank loans worth KRW 2 billion, the amount of financial obligation of the above company, the amount of obligation of KRW 300 million, and the amount of obligation of the transaction partner with KRW 3-400 million, and thus, even if he received the construction payment from the original company, he did not have any intent or ability to pay the above amount every month.
The Defendant, from February 7, 2013 to May 3, 2013, supplied by the complainant with an amount equivalent to KRW 17,876,560 of steel materials, etc., from that time, from that time to May 3, 2013.