beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal and the evidence of the court below, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged despite the fact that F agreed to make an investment jointly with the Defendant in the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Site and the ground house (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and that the Defendant provided money as stated in the facts charged, and that the Defendant acquired it by fraud, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment by
2. Determination
A. A. Around July 6, 2007, the Defendant introduced the instant real estate in E-real estate located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D with the victim F at the location of E-real estate operated by the Defendant, and falsely speaks that “The Defendant would purchase the said goods in KRW 300 million and divide them according to the investment ratio by selling them.”
However, even if the defendant received investment money from the victim, he did not intend to pay the principal or profits to the victim.
Nevertheless, the defendant deceiving the victim and received 2 million won under the pretext of brokerage commission for the real estate in this case on the 12th of the same month from the victim, and transferred 14 million won under the name of the defendant to a new bank account in the name of the defendant on the 13th of the same month, and received 10 million won under the pretext of part payments on the 13th of the same month, and received 10 million won under the pretext of part payments.
8.16. Receiving a remittance of KRW 20 million to the above account as an intermediate payment, and for the same year;
9. On October 10, 197, one cashier’s checks issued under the name of 12.5 million won, and on the 13th of the same month, 3.85 million won, such as receiving 3.85 million won from the above account as the construction cost for the instant real estate, was acquired and acquired through deception.
B. The lower court’s judgment, consistent with the facts charged, is based on the evidence of the lower court, such as each statement made by F in the court and the investigative agency.