beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant received two officetelss from E to receive the payment of the construction cost in lieu of the construction cost. In order to secure the construction fund, the Defendant sold 305 officetelss to D and received the down payment, but thereafter, the Defendant could not transfer ownership to the wind which is interrupted due to the exercise of lien, etc., and thus, the Defendant did not deceiving D.
2. The lower court determined as follows, based on the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, that the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for construction cost of KRW 1,050,000,000 for the construction cost of an officetel as a whole from E.
but the prosecutor stated that he was awarded a contract of KRW 900 million.
The statement is not consistent with the amount, E, the court of the court below and the investigation agency stated that the above construction was subcontracted to the defendant, and in light of the scale of officetels, it was impossible to perform the entire collection work. ② The contract amount submitted by the defendant is mistakenly stated as KRW 10,500,000, and the contract amount submitted by the defendant is suspected of being true documents because the contract amount, unlike the statement at the police of the defendant, is agreed to pay the full amount of the construction cost, unlike the statement at the police of the defendant, and ③ further, the former or the defendant did not submit any data on the commencement of construction (the defendant was the prosecutor's office, the prosecutor's office, beginning the construction work on July 2, 2009, the progress of construction was suspended on the ground of the exercise of the right of retention, and the progress of construction was very large to 3%, and the construction work was not commenced in the court of the court below, but the actual preparation was not commenced.
(4) Whether the contract for sale of the right of sale submitted by the defendant is authentic, such as the seal or seal of the seller.