beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.12.14 2017노3825

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. C is an investment in the business of a defendant under the well-known business details or economic circumstances of the defendant, and thus, each of the money in paragraphs 1 and 4 as stated in the judgment below and each of the property profits in paragraphs 2 and 3 as stated in the judgment of the court below constitutes an investment amount which is not expected to be returned as principal, so there is no fact that the defendant acquired the borrowed money by deceiving C.

B. The sentence of the court below (the 2th crime, the 3th crime, the 4th crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the 1st crime as stated in the judgment of the court below) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles: ① each of the money under paragraphs 1, 4, and each of the financial benefits under paragraphs 2, and 3 of the lower judgment from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court’s trial, and each of the financial benefits under paragraphs 1, 4, and 2, and 3 of the lower judgment (the above financial benefits are the purport that C is a loan repaid on behalf of the Defendant, and the amount repaid on behalf of the Defendant is a loan), and ② the Defendant prepared a cash payment statement to C twice on July 5, 2012 and April 18, 2013 (Evidence 36, 37 pages of evidence); ③ the Defendant issued a promissory note with the face value of KRW 400 million to C (Evidence 100, 100 documents, evidence, and C from 202 to 202) and each of the above financial benefits are sufficiently established.

In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, even though the defendant had no intention to repay the amount that was not repaid even after being leased by C, (the defendant did not have been repaid KRW 200 million since 2002 to the present day even though he received a loan from C from 2002) and C.