beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants, although the Defendants did not retain ginseng cultivation technology and water quality improvement technology, could have acquired money from the victims as if they had the above technology, they could not be found.
2. The facts charged in this case
A. Defendant A1) The fraud Defendant against the victim E is the Defendant’s wife G and nine parcels outside of the wife population G (hereinafter “instant land”). around May 2009, operated by the victim E (hereinafter “instant land”).
(A) From “H” located in “H,” the Defendant provided the above technology to the said victim as “a person holding technology that may make the instant land at the same level as that of the two-year ginseng if the instant land was sold,” and the said victim attempted to operate a ginseng cultivation business on the condition that 1 billion won would be invested when the instant land was sold, but the said land was not sold, but failed to carry out the business. However, the Defendant did not have such technology. However, on May 2009, the Defendant did not own the said technology. (A) On the Haman of the instant case, the Defendant, “H, even before the instant land was sold, obtained the instant land as collateral and carried out the ginseng business with the instant land loaned to the said victim, even before the said land was sold, may have a higher appraisal value.” The Defendant stated to the effect that “The said victim would obtain a deposit appraisal report on a high appraisal price if the said land was sold.”
However, even if the Defendant received the above money, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to obtain a high price trust appraisal statement, and the trust appraisal is not usual cost-free. On November 20, 2008, the land of this case was already subject to the establishment of the right to collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 2940 million, and the trust appraisal alone could not obtain additional collateral loan.
Nevertheless, the defendant made a false statement to the victim, and it belongs to the victim on May 2009.