beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant had deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged.
With the introduction of F, the victim found the Defendant and paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant with the meaning of “a request to help the company designated by the victim order the construction of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu E-gu reconstruction project.”
The defendant, the victim, and the F are in a partnership business relationship, the victim's return to the defendant, the victim's return to the defendant, the victim's return to the defendant, and the defendant's return to the defendant's return of 30 million won at will, the defendant's return to the defendant, and the victim's return to the defendant.
The Defendant had a negotiation, such as entering into a contract for selection of a company with the head of the G association of the above reconstruction project or a contract for a construction company or a IM (PM). The Defendant had the ability or intent to perform the terms promised to be promised by the victim on the pretext of the receipt of the money to participate in the contract.
The victim demanded the return of money and filed a complaint by the defendant, thereby failure to implement the project, and the defendant did not return 30 million won because the appraisal is upper to the victim.
Defendant
The court below sentenced the defendant to six months of imprisonment.
The defendant asserts that the above-mentioned punishment is too unfilled, and the prosecutor is too unfasible and unfair.
The lower court, on the grounds delineated below, found the criminal intent of deception and fraud for the following reasons.
The defendant would arrange for the removal of the reconstruction project and the order of the civil engineering works to the victim.
The above 30 million won was issued from the injured party.
However, it seems practically impossible for the defendant to allow the victim to receive contracts in the form of a contract for the removal of reconstruction projects and civil engineering works.
The Defendant used part of the money received from the injured party to pay F’s debt.