사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the court below acquitted the defendant on the grounds that the victim could have lent money to the defendant for opening a coffee shop by resolving the lease agreement dispute with the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) and the D Shopping mall management body (hereinafter “management body”) rather than lending money as facility costs required for the purchaseroom occupants. However, according to each of the statements by the witness E and H, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant deceivings the victim who needs money to be raised, thereby deceiving the victim of each of the money of this case. In this regard, the court below erred by mistake of facts.
2. Determination:
A. As evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case, there is a statement that the victim E loaned KRW 20 million from the Defendant to the Defendant’s first floor of D shopping mall in December 2012, 2012, and he borrowed KRW 50 million from the Defendant around January 17, 2012, to the effect that the victim E loaned KRW 10 million more than KRW 10 million from the Defendant, and that the victim E loaned KRW 10 million more from the investigation agency and the court below’s decision that the Defendant lent KRW 60 million to E in relation to the blive agency shop sales.
B. First, we examine the victim E’s statement.
According to each evidence, the Defendant Company established a public relations center on the first floor of the shopping mall from March 28, 201 to December 4, 2011 by leasing D shopping mall 1, 2, 5, and 8 from the management body on January 28, 2011. However, the Defendant Company’s business explanation meeting and the management body’s recruitment by establishing a public relations center on the first floor of the shopping mall from March 201 to December 4, 201. However, the Defendant Company’s business explanation work by blocking the electricity of a public relations center from September 201 by a dispute over the shopping mall lease agreement between the Defendant Company and the management body.