beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was aware of the fact that G would not cooperate with the victim’s operation in the case of receiving the security deposit without consulting with G and the security deposit, which is the partner, and that the Defendant received the security deposit, and that the Defendant was aware of the criminal intent to acquire the money, and the lower court acquitted the Defendant by mistake of the fact.
2. On May 22, 2014, the Defendant made a false statement in the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu) that “The Defendant would use the existing house at the face of KRW 500,000,000,000 per month and would allow the victim E to run a carpet business, as it is, at the face of KRW 5 million.”
However, even if the victim receives the deposit from the victim, there is no intention or ability to operate the car page.
As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, entered into an agreement (store use) in the same place, and received five million won as a deposit.
3. The lower court determined as follows: (a) the Defendant and G operate the instant car page in the form of the same business; (b) the Defendant and G agreed to operate the car page in the name of G; and (c) the Defendant and G agreed to operate the car page to a third party; and (d) subsequently, G is the actual party to the instant agreement as the victim of the F facts charged, which was one of its employees, due to E’s own employees.
The fact that G proposed to be operated by taking over and operating the car page, that G consulted with F on the business conditions when F would be received in excess of the car page, that at the time, the defendant and G had a dispute over whether F would be entitled to receive the deposit from F. However, if the defendant did not notify F of the total amount of the deposit despite the receipt of the deposit from F, G would have received the objection, and due to the record, G would have to know the fact that the defendant received the deposit from F.
(b).