특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) stated in the investigative agency and the court below that “The Defendant, while the Defendant requested the investment as necessary to purchase the land in relation to the extension of the golf course, used the investment in the purchase of the land, etc., and used the existing debt repayment, etc., without using the investment money for the purchase of the land, etc., and even if the actual debt exceeds the asset value of the golf course at the time of the extension of the golf course, the Defendants deceiving the Defendants as approximately KRW 65 billion differently from the fact.
The Defendants used most of the funds transferred from the victims to repay the principal and interest of the existing G and Z loans and the principal and interest of other individual creditors, and there is no details used for the purchase of land. The amount of debts explained by the Defendants to the victims is different from the actual amount of debts of the Defendants.
As acknowledged by the court below, even if the defendants cannot be deemed to have received an investment as the purchase cost of the land, since the funds of the victims are not comprehensively used to extend the golf course, such as the purchase of the land of the golf course, but used to operate the existing golf course. Therefore, it is sufficient to evaluate the terms of the defendants' agreement to use them for the extension
In addition, H’s J, which consulted the Defendants and PF lending, stated to the effect that “The Defendants did not comply with the authorization and permission conditions and did not secure the land before the implementation plan was granted, and thus, the loans related to the golf course extension projects promoted by the Defendants were not carried out any longer at the review stage, and that “B was free of charge at the review stage for the loan of 5 billion won for the purchase cost of land.”
As such, even if the Defendants were to be in fact unable to succeed due to the lack of loans from financial institutions before the completion of the authorization and permission, the Defendants are unreasonable.