beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the time when the creditors of the defendant seizes the defendant's claims for progress payment to the Seoul Metropolitan Government after the conclusion of the subcontract between the defendant and the victim, so it is improper that the defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the price to the victim at the time of concluding the subcontract (the fact-finding person), and that the punishment sentenced by the
(F) Determination; 2. Determination
A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the following changes in the indictment at the trial court. Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
Around July 24, 2011, the revised charges concluded a subcontract agreement with the victim E on the “Supplementary Facility Construction Works for F-Lighting Disaster Prevention” with the Defendant’s D office in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, for the purpose that the Defendant would pay the victim the construction price as the Seoul City would receive the progress payment.”
However, in fact, since the defendant has a large amount of existing debt and there was a seizure of the progress payment that should be received from the Seoul Metropolitan Government, or even if he has received the progress payment, he did not have any intention or ability to pay the price even if the victim did work.
Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) had the victim take care of such deceiving from July 201 to August 201, 201, the Defendant installed a facility for the prevention of the prevention of the damage to the F F FF fishing boat; and (c) did not pay KRW 121 million to the victim, even though the Defendant had the victim take care of it.
B. Although there is a ground for ex officio reversal of facts as above, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is to be examined.