beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error or misapprehension of legal principles) is that if the defendant had known the fact that the defendant would personally use part of the lease deposit by entering into a monthly rent contract with F in advance, he would not pay the lease deposit to F. Even though F would have made the right to collateral security, if the victim would make a disposal by paying the lease deposit to F by means of the defendant's deception, the crime of fraud is established. However, the court below acquitted the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles of fraud, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The facts charged and the judgment of the court below
A. The Defendant in the facts charged in the instant case is the head of the Association Association, the head of the Association Team D, and, at the request of the head of the Association Team D, “Korea Association is receiving a security deposit from Asan City, and the building to be used as the Association office is examined as a whole,” and the F, the owner of the building located in Asan City E (hereinafter “the instant building”) and the building lease of the building in Asan City, upon the request of the head of the Association Team D, talked with the owner of the building located in Asan City, the F, the owner of the building located in E (hereinafter “the instant building”), and entered into a monthly lease contract with the Dong and the monthly lease contract with the 100 million won, while receiving the security deposit from Asan City, the difference was
Accordingly, the Defendant concluded a monthly rent contract with the monthly rent of KRW 1.3 million with the monthly rent of KRW 20 million, and prepared a monthly rent contract with the deposit of KRW 1.3 million in formality and submitted it to ASEAN, and then changed the remainder of KRW 80 million, excluding the actual deposit of KRW 20 million, out of the 100 million provided by ASEAN City, the Defendant proposed that F will return the deposit of KRW 80 million upon the expiration of the monthly rent contract.
Accordingly, the defendant and the FF conspired on February 11, 2010.