사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
The defendant of the 2016 High Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2745 Decided the gist of the grounds for appeal and the misapprehension of the legal principle does not have any intention or ability to pay debts.
Considering the circumstances in which the Defendant decided to repay the victim F, who is a bond company, with the KIKO business profit, and the Defendant discussed with the victim F to obtain a loan when it becomes well known, to repay the loan, to transfer the company’s equity, or to transfer the company’s business license in the KIKO, the Defendant did not have the intent to acquire it by fraud.
In light of the circumstances that the Defendant used a motor vehicle leased by a victim M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) even though his/her obligation to G, etc. in the instant case was secured by the right to collateral security, the lower court did not have the intention to acquire the Defendant by deception when the Defendant leases a motor vehicle from the damaged company, in view of the fact that the real estate price decline was merely a security value lower due to the decline in real estate price, and that one of the partners used the motor vehicle.
The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly examined by the lower court in the case of the lower court 2016Da2745, supra. Considering the financial status of the Defendant and H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “stock company”) at the time when the Defendant received KRW 28 million from the victim, the progress of the business, etc., the Defendant, while recognizing the fact that the Defendant had no ability to repay within the agreed period and the Defendant was also difficult to repay within the agreed period, can sufficiently be recognized that there was the intention of defraudation by receiving KRW 28 million from the victim even if he/she did so.
The Defendant established H, around April 2013, in order to conduct the KIKO business without any particular property or income in bad credit standing.
Defendant’s loans or investments are unreasonable only H.