beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant entered into a contract with U.S. (hereinafter “instant contract”) to sell en bloc scrap metal arising from the previous site Nos. 2 through 5 sections of the F (hereinafter “the instant contract”) without notifying the fact that the Defendant had no authority to dispose of all scrap metal arising from the site Nos. 2, 3, and 5 sections of the said association site on a conclusive basis due to the transfer of the former State F; and (b) used most of the purchase price for scrap metal paid by the complainant in repayment of personal debt; and (c) in light of the fact that the Defendant used most of the purchase price for the said scrap metal paid by the complainant, the intent of the defrauded is recognized
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that there was no proof of facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts
2. Determination
A. On October 1, 2014, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) at the office of “E” for U’s operation, which is located in Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, the Defendant purchased all scrap metal generated at the site of removal of works for removal of works from work sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 within F in Jeonju; and (b) at least 40,000 tons per ton, the Defendant purchased KRW 725,00,000 per ton.
“A false statement” was made.
However, the Defendant was planning to pay the amount equivalent to KRW 370,000,000 for personal debt with money from the complainants, and agreed with each of the removal business entities of the Section 2,3,5 above to pay the amount by setting a deadline for the withdrawal of the Section 2,5 above. At the time, the Defendant did not pay the amount of the scrap metal in advance to the 2,3 Section 3 Section 4,000,000,000 to the 1.5 billion, and there was no ability to pay the amount of the scrap metal to the 2,50,000,000 won.
In addition, at the time, the defendant was removed between the removal business entity and the removal business entity of Section 5 above.