The second instance of the case of defrauding Tencent by pretending to be an employee of Laoganma was upheld. How to view this judgment from a legal perspective? Let's discuss this issue below, hoping that this content can help friends in need.
The original trial judge found that at the end of 2018, Cao, Liu, and Zheng deliberately pretended to be employees of Laoganma Company, and signed with Tencent in the name of the false Laoganma Company. Developed a contract to push Laoganma brand advertising in the QQ Speed ??game, defrauding Tencent into rewarding the game with high gifts and the CDKEY that encodes the high gifts, and transferred the CDKEY to others, and others received the obtained CDKEY decoding bonus can obtain the corresponding mobile game product (weapon equipment) code.
Cao and Liu contributed capital, and Zheng purchased new number cards, registered new WeChat IDs, and packaged and printed personal business cards for Laoganma employees. Then Zheng Moujun pretended to be Laoganma Enterprise Marketing Manager Wang Moulin and contacted Tencent Interactive Entertainment Key Account Manager Lin Moudan about cooperation matters.
In February 2019, Zheng Moujun once again discussed strategic cooperation matters with Lin Moudan in the name of Wang Moulin, and Lin Moudan made it clear that he needed to visit Guiyang for inspection. Cao and the other two then rented a central office in Guanshanhu District, Guiyang City and installed it as the office space of Laoganma Enterprise, and Zheng Moujun pretended to be Wang Moulin and Liu Mouli pretended to be Wang Mouna, the sales manager of Laoganma Enterprise. Lin Moudan went to investigate and started negotiations.
After gaining the trust of Tencent employees, Cao pretended to be the director of Laoganma Company, Li Moupeng, and Zheng Mojun used WeChat ID to discuss key points of cooperation with Lin Moudan and others from Tencent, and in 2019 On March 14 and May 6, 2017, two "Joint Marketing Cooperation Agreements" with a total base bid of more than 10.3 million yuan were signed with Tencent in the name of Laoganma Enterprises, and the "QQ Speed ??Mobile Game S" was disclosed. The "QQ Speed ??Mobile Game S Open-International Competition" and the Laoganma You Lazi product series have launched joint brand promotion cooperation.
The agreement commits to ***9 months from April 1 to December 31, 2019, and ***6 months from July 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. In cooperation, the Laoganma Youlazi product series will carry out joint brand promotion cooperation with "QQ Speed ????Mobile Game S Competition" and "QQ Speed ????Mobile Game S Competition - International Competition". Laoganma Enterprises paid more than RMB10.3 million to Tencent based on corresponding progress.
In it, Tencent promised to give 200,000 points worth 100 yuan as a gift for the QQ Speed ??mobile game. In order to successfully sign the contract, Zheng Moujun hired someone near the Guiyang Railway Station to counterfeit a copy of the business license of Guiyang Nanming Laoganma Flavor Food Sales Co., Ltd., as well as the contract seal and Lao Guiyang Nanming Laoganma Flavor Food Sales Co., Ltd. One seal each for Godmother Co., Ltd. Then the business license of the company was given to Tencent, and the counterfeit official seal of Laoganma Company was stamped on the agreement.
Cao and Zheng required Tencent to provide CDKEY on the grounds that CDKEY must be printed on collaborative products for collaborative marketing promotion. *** Pushed 1.2 million QQ Speed ??mobile game CDKEY to Cao. After obtaining the CDKEY, Cao resold it through platforms such as Taobao and Taobao Xianyu, and it was verified that the profit was 669,282 yuan. The proceeds were used by the three defendants to pay off debts and daily expenses. The CDKEY sold by Cao has been exchanged for 442,311 QQ Speed ??game gift packs, including 409,242 game gift packs worth 4313,650.8 yuan that the game mall has announced to sell.
After the second instance trial, it was found that the evidence that the appellants Cao and Liu Mouli and the original defendant Zheng Jun were guilty of contract fraud was conclusive and the direct evidence was indeed sufficient. Direct evidence to assess objective facts. The listed evidence has been cross-examined and proved in the first instance, and verified to be true, and then confirmed by the court of second instance for review and approval.
After the fraud was verified by the police, Tencent and Lao Gan Ma jointly issued a statement, and Tencent apologized to Lao Gan Ma Enterprises.
The original judgment determined that Cao was the first offender in the same crime, and Zheng and Liu were the accomplices. In response to Cao and Liu's appeals and defense opinions, the court of second instance held that the value of the game redemption code CDKEY involved in this case was because there was no relevant qualified asset appraisal agency to assess, and there was no market guidance on price development. For reference, the prosecution agency used the actual transaction price of the item in the game mall as the price, multiplied by the number of CDKEYs that Cao received from Tencent and exchanged, to calculate and serve as the amount of the crime charged.
In addition, the explanation given by Tencent confirmed that the price of game props in QQ Speed’s new project has always been consistent and has never changed. Therefore, this data is reasonable as a basis for conviction in this case.
The court of second instance also found that there was no evidence in this case to prove that Tencent employees leaked and sold CDKEY in violation of regulations, and there was evidence to prove that Zhang, a Tencent employee, discovered something wrong when supervising the use of CDKEY. The abnormal situation was caused by the abnormal use of CDKEY in the supermarket after entering the mall with Laoganma products.
In addition, the notarization power of attorney provided by Tencent confirmed that Tencent employees carried out evidence preservation of the entire process of exchange in the QQ Speed ??mobile game under the records of the notary. According to the preparation and distribution of CDKEY, taking the gift package Jinjing Dynamic Energy as an example, the redemption of the gift package requires purchasing and paying a premium to increase capital. It shows that CDKEY has value and can only be purchased after paying a premium and increasing capital.
The court of second instance held that for the purpose of unjust enrichment, Cao and the others defrauded Tencent of RMB 4313650.8 worth of property by pretending to be employees of Laoganma Company during the signing and performance of the contract. It is very serious, and the behavior constitutes the crime of contract fraud.
The evidence assessed in the original verdict is conclusive, the direct evidence is indeed sufficient, the conviction is accurate, the conviction and sentencing are appropriate, and the trial procedures are reasonable and legal, and should be maintained. A judgment was issued on April 11, 2022 to reject the complaint, and the procuratorate protested. The judgment was a third-instance judgment.