사기
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On February 29, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around February 29, 2012, at a miscellaneous store for imported goods imported by “D” operated by the victim C on the 8th floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B; (b) “On the face of lending KRW 200 million, he/she imported overseas Masters and kept them in a new store; (c) sells them together with overseas Masters owned by the Party; and (d) sells them within six months with its profits.
“.....”
However, even if the Defendant borrowed the above money from the injured party, the Defendant merely attempted to use it as personal debt, lease deposit, company operating expenses, etc., and did not have the intent or ability to repay the above borrowed money within six months by using it as income from overseas printed items.
On February 29, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received the payment of KRW 18 million in cash and KRW 42 million in a check around February 29, 2012 from the victim by deceiving the victim as above; and (b) received KRW 50 million in a check around March 5, 2012 from the victim; and (c) received KRW 200 million in total.
2. The fact that the defendant and the defense counsel received KRW 200 million from the injured party's assertion, although it is recognized that the defendant and the defense counsel received KRW 200 million from the injured party, it is not the borrowed money, but the part of the invested money promised by the victim, and later changed into the loan by mutual agreement. Since there is sufficient intent or ability to pay the money at the time of receiving the money and at the maturity of payment,
3. Determination
A. The facts charged in the instant case purported that the Defendant, by deceiving the victim with the intent to use the borrowed money and by deceiving him/her about his/her intent to repay the borrowed money or his/her ability, he/she is divided as to whether the said fraud was made.
B. The victim, through the statement made by the investigative agency and the testimony made in this court, had the victim at the time at the time inventory goods worth KRW 1 billion, and the clothes products have been in the state of diversified because of the nature of time, the loss has been significantly increased.