beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant has endeavored to obtain an industrial complex development permit in accordance with the service agreement with the victim F. However, it was impossible for the above victim to unilaterally waive the project, and the above victim did not deceiving the above victim and defraud 100 million won as service cost. However, the judgment of the court below which found the above victim guilty of fraud among the facts charged in this case, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The defendant asserts that the sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the above sentence is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was operating E corporation for the purpose of consulting business with respect to small and medium enterprises since 1991. Around July 2010, the defendant heard that X corporation operated by J (hereinafter referred to as “X”) found land to be used as a factory site, and that J developed land outside Gangseo-gu Busan G (hereinafter referred to as “the land in this case”) owned by M to the industrial complex, Gangseo-gu, Busan (hereinafter referred to as “M”), and recommended investment to use the above land as a factory site, and ② the defendant was introduced to the victim F corporation to be an investor to invest in the above land development project through X director W, and the victim and J can pay at least KRW 1 billion to the victim and J the benefit of KRW 2 billion if the permission for the development of the industrial complex was obtained.
At present, K Co., Ltd and L Co. submitted a letter of intent to invest in the city of Busan with respect to the development permission of industrial complex. The defendant was delegated by M, the owner of the land of this case, and the industrial complex without consent of the landowner.