beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.09.19 2019노663

사기등

Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In relation to the crime of fraud among the facts charged in this case, Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that at the time when the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the victim had already been aware of the fact that it is difficult for the Defendant to do so, and thus, the Defendant did not defraud the money by deceiving the victim. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (three months of imprisonment) is too

B. The prosecutor (not guilty part) is an employee of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., who deals with the business affairs of the victim company, and the new installment sales contract belongs to the defendant's business, so the defendant's failure to pay the fee to the company even though the defendant is entering into a new installment contract with D constitutes occupational breach of trust.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (Fraud part) and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① at the time of borrowing KRW 20 million from the victim around September 2016 from the victim, there was a place where the Defendant entered money later than three months.

“Around November 8, 2016, at the time of borrowing KRW 10 million from the Defendant, the Defendant borrowed each of the above money from the victim as “on the end of December 2016, 2016.” At the time, the Defendant: (a) was required to pay KRW 700-8 million monthly credit card loans, automobile rental fees, etc.; (b) on the other hand, the Defendant was liable to pay KRW 10 million credit card loans, KRW 9 million personal debts, and KRW 9 million; (c) it appears that the Defendant was unable to repay the said money even if he was unable to repay the said money with his capacity at the time; and (c) the Defendant was also aware that his mother in Japan was unable to sell the said money to the victim by December 2, 2016 (Evidence 99).