beta
Text
Defendant
C All appeals filed against C and the Defendant A and B of the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant C (1) erroneous determination of facts (A) part of the I removed construction work (a) (a) the Defendant and the Victim A drafted an I removed contract form for the I removed construction work from Q Q who had committed M on February 12, 2010, which was the autonomous chairperson of the I and the Victim A, and they only delivered money to Q who had committed M on February 12, 2010, and did not deceiving the Victim A.
(B) The part of H removal construction work (Fraud) was concluded between the Defendant and the Victim A to the AO, who is an executive officer of the J self-governing committee, and the Defendant only delivered KRW 30 million to the AO according to the victim’s instructions, and did not deceiving the victim.
(C) The Defendant was merely a role of introducing the victim X to T and delivering the victim’s horses to T, and did not obtain KRW 100 million from the victim as a performance bond for construction works in collusion with T, etc., and the Defendant did not commit fraud by obtaining some of the money from the victim by making it possible for T to deposit the personnel expenses in the form of personnel expenses.
In addition, 5 million won out of 6 million won received at the registration fee of AD collaborative companies is delivered to AD employees and tried to register the victim's operation company as a collaborative company, but it does not reach the registration, and it does not have the intention of fraud.
(D) The Defendant committed fraud against the victim AE while making efforts to keep the contract from the standpoint of introducing and introducing the victim AE upon the request of T, but did not receive the victim's 50 million won from T in collusion with T, and did not receive the victim's 50 million won from the victim. The Defendant received money from the victim on the ground that T received money from the victim on the ground that T received money in the name of personnel expenses. Therefore, there is no intention to commit fraud.
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too excessive.