beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In regard to the mistake of facts (based on a mistake of facts and unfair sentencing) 1, the Defendant: (a) had considerable personal debt at the time of entering into a contract with the victim of the damage who is a contractor of the building in Nam-gu Incheon, and had been prevented from returning the price of the construction site; (b) even if he received the construction price, it did not have the intent or ability to ordinarily carry out construction work by inserting it; and (c) in the terms of the contract, the Defendant did not carry out most of the work despite the fact that the construction work includes the waste disposal work of the first to fourth above ground in addition to the dismantling work of the fifth floor of the building in question, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant obtained the construction price from the victim. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the facts charged of fraud
B. The lower court’s punishment is excessively unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts
A. On March 7, 2016, the Defendant negotiated the instant facts charged with the construction at the office located in the building site of the building construction site of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. In the process of entering into a contract for waste treatment, dismantling of a 5th floor above the ground level from the first to fourth floor above the ground level of K and the contract for new construction of a 5th floor above the ground level, the victim Co., Ltd., Ltd., a contractor for the construction of the said construction, the Defendant concluded a construction contract with K, an agent of the said J, and “construction of an I building” with the said J. Around March 29, 2016. Around March 29, 2016, the Defendant again concluded a contract to change the contractor’s name to “L” and adjusted the construction cost to KRW 46 million.
However, the facts are referred to as the defendant's personal obligation, including wage obligations that occurred at the other construction sites at the time, is considerably high.