The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the defendant would pay 5 million won per month to the victim a profit.
A false statement can be acknowledged that the part of the case is obtained from the injured party who received 60,000,000 won (hereinafter “the money of this case”) as the investment money of the “E” restaurant operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “E restaurant”).
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
2. The prosecutor found the existing facts charged as the primary facts charged and added the ancillary facts charged.
Therefore, the contents of the preliminary facts charged and the primary facts charged are the same as the date and time of deception with “Policeman in March 2014” and “Felman in April 2014,” and the same as “Felman in April 2014” with “Felman in March 201,” so the issues are the same.
Therefore, the following shall be judged together:
A. First, we examine whether the instant money is an investment bond or acquisition price.
The victim consistently stated that the instant money that was paid to the Defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the trial of the party, along with the Defendant, was an investment money provided while engaging in a restaurant business.
On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the instant money was part of the acquisition price paid by the victim to take over the instant restaurant in KRW 90,000,000.
In this regard, in light of the following circumstances, the money of this case is determined to be an investment for the business of the restaurant of this case, such as the victim's statement, in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.
1) First of all, the fact that the injured person tried to operate a restaurant in this case with the Defendant in the original trial of Hdo and the trial of the party, all of the Defendant’s entire partners, is known.