beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) can be sufficiently recognized that there was a criminal intent to acquire by deception against the defendant at the time of the instant case.
2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is an internal director, who is the representative of the E (E; hereinafter “Defendant Company”) for the purpose of exporting and importing industrial plants referred to in subparagraph 4 and 202 of Kimhae-si, and the victim F (the representative G; hereinafter “victim Company”) is a corporation for the purpose of international logistics transportation.
On February 29, 2016, the Defendant, through his employee H, transported 90,00 U.S. transportation cost to the Defendant Company, “The Victim Company,” which was ordered by the Defendant Company from the J Company, to the oil refining company (K) of the projector projector for the purpose of “The Victim Company,” and the Defendant Company pays 90,000 U.S. transportation cost (INVICE) within 30 days from the date of issuance of the written request (INVE).
“A contract of carriage” was made with the content of “A contract of carriage.
However, the defendant has to pay the existing debt, and even if he receives the payment from the "JJ company" due to the absence of any other sales, he did not have an intention or ability to pay the payment to the victim company.
However, the Defendant entered into a contract as if he were to pay the price, thereby deceiving the victim company, and had the victim company carry the projector for the transport of the projector for the Kazakh on April 21, 2016.
Accordingly, even if the Defendant received USD 193,00 from the J’s “J” on April 29, 2016, the Defendant did not pay the transport cost to the victim company until May 11, 2016, within 30 days from the date on which the victim company issued the tax invoice, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 103,428,00.
3. The lower court’s judgment is consistent with the following: (i) the Defendant’s basic position from an investigative agency to this Court.