beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.03.29 2012노3518

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in the gist of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant prepared a written confirmation that, at the time of lending money from the victim, the Defendant “it is unlikely to file an application for individual rehabilitation or individual bankruptcy within three months since it is not in the present insolvency status.” However, the Defendant has already been in the insolvency status by paying the interest on the existing debt in excess of the monthly income, and it can be recognized that the Defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation due to its lapse. Therefore, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant acquired the said money from

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case, which erred by misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant had no intent or ability to repay the principal and interest even if he/she received a loan from the victim right corporation, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to do so, even if he/she received a loan from the victim right corporation.

Nevertheless, on February 16, 2012, the Defendant, at the victim's office located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 1, 309 Dong 1, Dong 309 of the Yeongdeungpo-gu building B, by deceiving the employee in charge of name failure to pay KRW 4 million in good faith every month for 34 months and 200,000 won every month for 3,96,000 won.

B. The lower court determined as follows, i.e., ① the Defendant was in office as a visiting teacher at the time of the instant loan and up to now, and monthly income is about KRW 1.7 million, and the victim confirmed that the Defendant was in office as the visiting teacher as above and trusted monthly income, and deemed that the Defendant gave a false notice to the victim.