사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) in light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in relation to the part on the crime of borrowing funds under the pretext of the loan around December 21, 2009 among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant entices the victim that he would use the funds for the purpose of "business funds of the Defendant" by hiding the true purpose of the loan funds in this case; and (b) even if he did not have the ability or intent to repay the funds in this case
It can fully recognize the fact that he/she has acquired by deceiving the victim by deceiving him/her of KRW 1450,500,000.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, it is doubtful that the defendant is guilty.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305 delivered on February 25, 2000, etc.). B.
In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, i.e., (i) the victim provided the loan of this case with the intent to use it as a business fund, and (ii) even if the defendant knew that he would use it for the purpose of lending it to a third party, he did not present any materials to the effect that he clearly notified the defendant of this fact (or, at the prosecutor’s office, the victim did not clearly specify the purpose of using it when he lent it when he lent it to a third party).