(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.12.4.선고 2020노1737 판결

The Framework Agreement on Prop-Co-Development signed between the Defendant and the victim (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") specifically sets the respective investment ratio and operating methods, so it shall be deemed that the Defendant and the victim are in a partnership relationship. The money kept by the Defendant shall be deemed as a joint proprietor of a business pursuant to the agreement, as the purpose and purpose of use are prescribed. Accordingly, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

The lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to view the instant agreement as a partnership agreement under the Civil Act, and accordingly, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant and the victim were in a partnership relationship, and otherwise, there is no evidence to support that the Defendant had been in a partnership relationship with the Defendant, and that there was no other evidence to support that the Defendant had been in a custody of the

In addition to the grounds stated in the judgment below through the statement of reasons for appeal, the prosecutor asserts that the money of this case, which the victim remitted to the defendant, was additionally used only for the construction of a building in accordance with the instant agreement. However, Article 8(3) of the instant agreement only provides that “if the construction is performed in compliance with the process after the victim confirmed the details of the supervision report, the payment of the construction amount shall be made to the defendant,” and there is no restriction on the use of the construction amount paid. It is difficult to see that the victim’s legal statement of the court below alone alone, the victim’s purpose and use is determined so that the money remitted to the defendant is used only for the construction of the building, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Further, this is justified in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly adopted by the court below and examined by the court below, and it is difficult to see that there is any error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as argued by the prosecutor. Therefore,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.