beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal seems to have been aware that the Defendant, in the event that there is a lack of funds for the Defendant to run a business of supplying state-owned rice, he would not have any problem in rice supply if only a factory is secured to the victim D, and would have received money from the victim D, and that the Defendant himself was also required to invest more money than the amount invested by the victim, and the Defendant could have sufficiently anticipated that the success of the business could not be uncertain and the progress of the business might not be well-beingd.
As such, the defendant can be recognized as willful negligence of fraud.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is erroneous.
2. Determination
A. On November 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract on supply of nives and rice nives to the victim E operated by the victim D in the Seoul Gamdong Agricultural and Fishery Products Wholesale Market.
The purpose of this study is to make a factory and produce rice stuffs and supply them to (ju) low-water plants, and to make a factory obtain money.
A 3-year rice-state plant may be listed, and if so, 50 times rice-state plant may be profits.
“.....”
However, even if the defendant received money from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to operate a rice-related plant.
Nevertheless, on December 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) transferred KRW 60 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (F) in the name of the Defendant on December 17, 2012; and (c) obtained transfer of KRW 40 million to the same account on January 23, 2013, and acquired KRW 100 million in total.
B. The lower court’s judgment appears to be erroneous in its determination as follows: ① at the time when the Defendant and H asked the victim D to make an investment in rice State water business, H appears to be a clerical error in the lower judgment’s judgment as it was in Halim Pream Investment Company, H, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C
The number of rice for a period of three years between the Department.