특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The judgment below
Of them, the part of conviction against the Defendants (including the part of innocence) shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be held.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. It is true that Defendants 1 and 10 million won borrowed from the injured party from May 11, 2010 to October 6, 2010 due to the shortage of operating funds while conducting the IncheonO implementation project.
On January 17, 2011, when the date of occupancy of theO scheduled as of January 17, 201 came and the Defendants received enforcement profits, they planned to immediately repay the principal and interest to the victims with the money, and the victims were aware of such circumstances.
It is too difficult for the Defendants to pay the principal and interest of the loan in time on the wind that the Defendants could not receive any profit due to the unexpected construction problems. The Defendants had the intent of deceiving the victims, or of deceiving the Defendants.
subsection (b) of this section.
2) On February 18, 2013, the Defendants: (a) borrowed KRW 40 million from the injured party on and agreed to provide a certain content; (b) the Defendants did not deception the injured party in connection with the agreement; and (c) at that time the Defendants had the intent and ability to implement such agreement.
However, since the injured party failed to prepare the balance of the apartment sale price, Defendant B paid the above KRW 40 million to the injured party’s spouse, the fact that the Defendants did not pay the apartment sale price on behalf of the injured party is nothing more than that of the Defendants. The Defendants deceiving the injured party, or had the intent to commit the crime of deceiving the accused.
subsection (b) of this section.
3) The sentencing of the lower court with respect to the Defendants (Defendant A: 2 years of imprisonment and 4 years of suspended sentence of 6 months of imprisonment, Defendant B: 3 years of suspended sentence of 2 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. On October 31, 2009, the Prosecutor 1), based on the statement in the letter of payment, the AJ and K’s respective statements, etc., as to the fraud by around October 31, 2009 (the lower court 2014 High 395 case).