beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.11.12 2020노959

사기

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) received KRW 150 million from the victim as a deposit for lease; (b) subsequently, Defendant A tried to borrow KRW 10 billion from the victim as a interest rate of KRW 100 million; and (c) to pay the purchase price for the franchise franchise at Suwon-si, Suwon-si. However, Defendant A was unable to obtain a loan of KRW 100,000,000, not to pay the purchase price for the franchise; (c) Defendant A did not intend to obtain a loan of KRW 100,000. As indicated in the facts charged, there was no fact that Defendant A conspired with Defendant B, as indicated in the facts charged, or by deceiving the victim with intent by defraudation. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged was erroneous and unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court determined that the Defendants conspired in a passive and active manner to induce the victims, thereby deceiving the victims of KRW 150 million as the security deposit, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning.

Defendant

A asserts that: (a) the sales contract deposit of the Domotour was paid in KRW 30 million by the victim; (b) the Defendant did not have the ability to pay KRW 2.3 billion to the extent that it was paid as the lease deposit received from the victim; (c) the Defendant A borrowed KRW 120 million out of the lease deposit received from the victim as KRW 10 million for three days; and (d) used the passbook deposited in KRW 10 billion, etc., and used the passbook deposited in KRW 10 billion, thereby making up for the purchase price of the Domoto; (c) however, the method of raising such funds is very low in feasibility; and (d) the Defendants paid the said amount to the victim even though there was no fact that the sum of KRW 100 million and the intermediate payment was paid in KRW 200 million to the owner of the Domoto.