beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) around January 2013, the Defendant was aware that H trade union, an operator of the instant store, knew of the extension of the existing contract; (b) therefore, C was unable to give the victim the right to operate the store in accordance with the agreement; (c) C and the Defendant were relatively close to others to mislead them as marital relations; and (d) the account in the name of the Defendant was used in the transaction under the name of the broker of the horse race track operation right; and (c) the primary facts charged that the Defendant conspired to commit the fraud of C are sufficiently proven; and even if not, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant aided and abetted the Defendant to commit the fraud of C.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. (1) The Defendant and C of the facts charged of the instant case conspired to acquire money from the victim E as a broker fee, etc., in the stores of D Horse race tracks, as well as the victim E was interested.
C Around December 2012, at the Gmaart in the area of the victim’s operation located in the Cheongju-si, a considerable amount of Cheongju-si, that reads that “The contract period of a person operating the 1st floor shop (hereinafter “instant shop”) of the Gu Horse race track is expired on March 2013, 2013. To engage in funeral services at this place, the disabled association shall grant KRW 190 million as a premium to the association of persons with disabilities. It would allow a person to receive the right to operate the said store on a face of money.”
However, in fact, the instant store was operated directly at H at the time and continued to have been concluded and maintained with H labor and lease agreements, and there was no fact that it had undergone the procedure such as a public announcement of tender premised on the termination of lease, and the term of the instant store was renewed by February 24, 2016. Therefore, even if the victim received premium from the victim, there was no intention or ability to allow the victim to obtain the right to operate the store.
The defendant is against the victim on December 26, 2012.