사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall dismiss the application filed by the applicant for compensation.
1. The summary of the facts charged in this case states that the Defendant recorded and recorded the business losses of the Defendant’s “C” company’s operation, and took advantage of the Company’s operation funds from other persons than the Appellant B (hereinafter “Appellant”), and, even if he/she borrowed money from the Appellant due to his/her lack of money, he/she did not have any intent or ability to repay the funds. However, on June 10, 2008, he/she did not know of the trade name in the Gangnam-gu Pool mobile area in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and he/she acquired it by fraud from the Appellant, “I will repay the funds if he/she borrowed money due to the shortage of the Company’s operation funds,” and that he/she received KRW 94 million, excluding the advance interest and fees, from the Appellant, under the pretext of the borrowed money.
2. The defendant's lawsuit and summary of the grounds for appeal, and the judgment of the court below
A. On November 10, 2006, the defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the complainant and repaid most of the borrowed principal except approximately KRW 10 million from March 2008, but at the request of the complainant who urged the repayment of the remainder of KRW 10 million, the defendant issued each certificate of personal seal impression, business registration certificate, and commercial monthly rent contract, etc. of the defendant and the above administrator of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge of the company in charge.
B. The Defendant alleged not guilty in the lower court’s judgment to the same effect as the grounds for appeal, but the lower court, based on the following circumstances, known by the evidence in its holding, from the complainant around June 10, 2008.