사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant had a debt of approximately seven billion won including a loan obligation of KRW 6 billion to a financial institution at the time of the loan in this case, and the real estate owned by the Defendant was established with a considerable amount of money as the right to collateral security, the Defendant’s claim against I was not secured, and there was no possibility of recovery since I was bound, and the Defendant actually failed to repay the loan in this case until now, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant had no capacity and intent to repay the loan in this case, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On September 2009, the Defendant stated that “Around September 2009, F Co., Ltd., Ltd., located E, would have to pay KRW 300 million to the victim G.”
However, at the time, the Defendant had a debt of about 7 billion won, including six billion won loans, and paid monthly interest of about 30 million won. The real estate rent revenue owned by the Defendant was merely 12.5 million won per month and it was difficult to pay interest. Although the six appraised value of real estate, such as the land and building, etc. owned by the Defendant was about 10.6 billion won, the said real estate was already subject to collateral security, and it was difficult to dispose of the said real estate in a short period due to the depression of the global financial crisis in 2008, or to make an additional loan. The Defendant was detained by the Defendant for a short period of time from September 25, 2009 to November 13, 2009, and there was a possibility of repayment from the Defendant to the Defendant for a short period of time, even if he was detained by the Defendant.