사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In full view of the following facts: (a) the victim was aware of the fact that the Defendant was able to repay the amount based on the victim’s legal statement at the court below or the Defendant’s certificate of income amount, and (b) the Defendant received the Defendant’s payment after borrowing the money from the victim; and (c) the Defendant did not use it for repayment of the Defendant’s obligation to the victim; and (d) it is merely an object of consideration after borrowing the money; and (e) the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of the Defendant by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence.
(1) The prosecutor asserts that the court below actively considered the defendant's husband's income in relation to the defendant's husband's ability to repay at the time of the loan of this case is erroneous in the legal principles as to the burden of proof in the criminal trial, and this part of the argument is eventually attributable to the defendant's assertion that the defendant had no intention to repay and ability at the time of loan of this case). 2. The court below's decision is just in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
The Defendant, around December 2009, borrowed KRW 10 million from a bond company and the Defendant’s pro-Japanese, at the time of the borrowing of the loan, did not bear any particular debt other than KRW 7 million from the Dongjak Credit Cooperative under the Defendant’s name. The Defendant’s husband from June 2009, around KRW 1.5 million from June 2009, prior to the borrowing of the loan.