사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had a total of KRW 2 billion (2 billion) and KRW 15 billion (2.15 billion) borrowed from E and F to community credit cooperatives at the time of the instant case. However, the Defendant was a building C from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”).
() The 19 households were purchased at KRW 2.5 billion, and the Defendant acquired a loan of KRW 2.0 billion to the Defendant’s community credit cooperatives, and paid KRW 500 million to the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant, after paying KRW 500 million to the victim, recovered the sales contract for the instant loan of KRW 115 million, which was provided to secure the obligation of KRW 15 million, and transferred ownership to the victim. In addition, since the Defendant introduced the victims of bonds to the Defendant and talked to G, the victim was believed to have known of such fact through G. In addition, on September 27, 2012, the Defendant considered to have known of the instant loan of KRW 15 million.
The security trust contract was concluded with the company, and the above trust contract prohibits the establishment of rights, such as lease, to the loan of this case without prior consent of the international trust.
The Defendant’s offering of the instant loan to F and E as security is following the completion of the registration of the security trust for the instant loan. As such, the Defendant may not pay the loan to F and E.
Even if the trust registration is made, F and E cannot transfer the ownership of the 7th generation of the loan of this case.
Therefore, the Defendant’s offering of the instant loan to F and E as security does not obstruct the transfer of the ownership of the instant loan to the victim.
Therefore, the defendant could not be said to have deceiving the victim, and the defendant 19 households of the loan of this case to the victim.