beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the victim B’s frauds. The Defendant supplied B with the species of species equivalent to KRW 20 million necessary for the production of clothes from B, paid the remainder of KRW 15.6 million, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 4.4 million by dividing the contact with B. As such, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to commit fraud. 2) As to embezzlement against the victim E, the Defendant agreed on September 30, 201 to pay the full-time processing cost of KRW 16,00 per Chapter E by requesting E around September 30, 201, while entrusting E with the work of attaching a volume of KRW 790,000 for the production of clothes, but the Defendant was paid KRW 15.6 million from the contractor after deducting KRW 5.4 million from the cost of manufacturing clothes from the contractor.
Accordingly, the Defendant agreed to pay only KRW 11,455,00 after deducting a part of the price from E, and only agreed to pay the remainder after receiving KRW 10,000 from the contractor to E and remitting it to E, and the Defendant was not in the position of the custodian after receiving KRW 2,64,00 from the contractor for the purpose of E, and thus, the Defendant did not embezzled the money in custody for E.
3) On September 2013, the Defendant agreed to pay 15,000 won per head of 566 to G when requesting work to attach a volume to 566 to the early patrolman. G was paid to a third party for the amount of KRW 6,792,00 not paid to G due to the relationship that G subcontracted the work to a third party and paid the processing cost of KRW 3,000 per head of 3,00,000. However, the Defendant paid KRW 6,865,00 to G by taking into account the wind that the damage caused by the delay in G’s work due to the delay in G’s work, the Defendant paid KRW 2,485,00 to G by taking into account the damage, so there was no criminal intent to commit fraud by the Defendant.