사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) was as follows: (a) at the time of borrowing KRW 100 million from C on January 29, 2009, the Defendant suffered damage by deceitation of money from D; and (b) even though some of the members of the number fraternity operated by the Defendant did not pay the guidance money; (c) the Defendant had the intent and ability to fully repay the money to C through borrowing from his own financial resources and third parties, so the Defendant did not deceiving C; and (d) the Defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud.
2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant
A. The Defendant is a leader who organized and operated five numbers of the facts charged in the instant case.
On January 29, 2009, the defendant issued 10 million won cashier's checks to the victim C at the temporary-type restaurant near the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seocho-gu Seocho-gu's Seocho-gu, "on the same day, if the defendant lends KRW 100 million to the fraternity due to the lack of funds, it shall be repaid in such a way that 12,500,000 won can substitute for one payment of the 100 million foot to the fraternity." On the same day, the defendant was issued 10 million won cashier's checks to the victim who believed it in the street near the above limited-type restaurant.
However, the Defendant, from March 2008, was unable to recover the monthly payment of KRW 40 million from KRW 5 million to KRW 40 million from KRW 40 million from KRW D on October 1, 2008 to KRW 11,000,000 from KRW 248,000,00 from KRW D. As to the husband of Songpa-gu 22 Dong 1006, Songpa-gu, Seoul, a joint ownership with the husband, there was no economic value in establishing two collateral mortgages with the maximum debt amount of KRW 811,00,00 in total. As of January 2009, the Defendant’s monthly payment of KRW 22,50,000,000, which was not received from KRW 157,500,000 from KRW 15,50,000 from the Defendant at the time, and it was difficult to do so.