beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the Defendant agreed with the victim to pay the balance of construction price by December 5, 201; (b) the victim was not a person who entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant; (c) there is no reason to agree to receive construction price from business profits; and (d) the Defendant did not have the ability to pay the construction price to the victim in light of his/her own ability at the time
2. The Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case is the person operating the “E” at the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Center, and on November 9, 201, at the H office of the victim G management of the F building 101 in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F building 101, the Defendant jointly carried out the “Silverg” amounting to KRW 8 billion from Pyeongtaek Dongdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, and among the above “Silverging-gu”-based construction, the Defendant would bring the interior Corporation to the H of the victim’s operation. At present, the Defendant tried to operate soup-gu-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si
However, the Defendant did not have any fact that he jointly implemented the “Irrrrrrrt” at Pyeongdong, and the Defendant had already been a bad credit holder, and did not have any property under the name of the Defendant, and the said soup was opened by obtaining a loan under the name of the Defendant and did not have any specific profits. As such, even if he was supplied with a human test by the victim, he/she did not have the intent or ability to pay the construction cost until December 5, 201.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim do so so so and had the victim do so do so so, thereby acquiring pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 35.9 million for the construction cost.
3. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, the lower court’s judgment is difficult to view that the Defendant had a criminal intent to acquire the amount equivalent to the construction cost at the time of the instant construction contract, and otherwise.