beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.03 2015노3229

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, even though the defendant could be found guilty of deceiving the victim and deceiving 40 million won, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: on November 2, 2013, the Defendant: “If the Defendant lends KRW 40 million to the Victim C, he/she will have notarial and interest monthly; and on June 2, 2014.”

After transmitting the text message “,” the message “I will use and return it within a short period of time because I have borrowed the money for 6 months in the case of lending the money.”

Although it was sufficient to borrow a house with a substitute, I would like to request the lending of money because they would not demand a low amount of money because they would like to make money difficult.

“A false representation was made.”

However, the Defendant did not have a system to receive the borrowed money, and there was no substantial value due to the establishment of senior mortgage, etc. on the Defendant’s real estate, and there was no practical value due to the impossibility of additional loans. Since the financial situation has deteriorated, such as loans equivalent to KRW 1.6 billion per month and the burden of interest equivalent to KRW 5 million per month, there was no intention or ability to repay the borrowed money within the agreed period even if the Defendant borrowed money from

On November 5, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 40 million from the victim to the D account, which was the Defendant’s wife on November 5, 2013, and acquired it by fraud.

B. The lower court found the following facts based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

A) On July 23, 2001, the Defendant’s wife D registers the transfer of ownership due to a voluntary auction bid for the building E large 2,141 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”).