beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning the crime of Nos. 2 through 4 of the judgment shall be reversed.
As to the crime of 2 to 4 of the judgment of the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the fraud against the victim B (the crime No. 1 of the original judgment) is only investment funds necessary for H intake pumps, the Land Construction Corporation, and the other related construction, not borrowed funds that deceiving the purpose of use.
However, it is only impossible to return the investment amount to the victim because the defendant could not perform the construction of the above water pumps due to the debt of E (the subcontractor of the above soil construction project).
B) There was no deception by the Defendant to the effect that “the Defendant would substitute for the payment of human resources. If so, he would have another construction.” Moreover, the Defendant did not bear financial obligations or tax obligations as stated in this part of the facts charged at the time, and was thought to be able to pay the said human resources price with the Defendant’s construction cost claim against AX, etc. (the crime of Article 4 of the original judgment). The Defendant did not bear financial obligations and tax obligations as stated in this part of the facts charged at the time of borrowing KRW 20 million from the victim as material price.
The Defendant, using the above money borrowed from the victim, performed a waterproof construction work on the 7th floor of the BE located in the Jung-gu Daejeon-gu AE, but the owner failed to repay the borrowed money to the victim because it was impossible for the owner to perform the remaining construction work on the wind that he subcontracted to the third business (other than the Defendant). On the other hand, each of the above facts charged should have been pronounced not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant by deceiving the victims to be a criminal intent of defraudation, or that there was no deception. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the other premise.