사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. According to the summary of the grounds of appeal of this case, although the court below found the defendant not guilty of the defendant on the ground that the defendant could not be deemed to have borrowed money by deceiving the victim by lending money for the purpose of extension or repair of inspection, although the defendant did not intend to use money for the extension and repair of inspection, and there was no intention or ability to repay money to others within one month even if he borrowed money from others, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the defendant on the ground that he could not be deemed to have borrowed money by deceiving the victim to lend money for
2. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application for changes in indictment with the entries in the revised indictment column as of 1. The judgment of the court below was no longer maintained, since the subject of the adjudication was changed by this court's permission.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's argument in the grounds for appeal is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.
3. First of all, as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant borrowed money from the victim for the purpose of inspection repair expenses, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant consistently transferred money from the investigative agency to H with his own money and agreed with H to receive and repay the money from the victim after one month, and the Defendant was unable to receive the money due to the death while he was not paid the money, resulting in failure to repay the money to the victim. In light of the details of the Defendant’s bank transaction, the Defendant’s bank transaction amount is KRW 15 million, which the Defendant received from the victim on September 5, 2012.