사기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant owned an apartment building and had the ability to repay and had no criminal intent to commit fraud; (b) the Defendant was not a definite operator of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”); and (c) even though the fact was found that the money received from the victim was not used individually as a result of the check tracking, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criminal intent of defraudation or defraudation
2. In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, the Defendant, in collusion with G and J, could be recognized as the fact of deceiving the victim, even though he did not have the intent or ability to repay the money from the victim, and by deceiving the victim as a business fund, by receiving KRW 100 million from the victim as a business fund. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal doctrine
A. The record reveals that the defendant owned an apartment with a market price of at least 20 million won is recognized, but at the time of the crime of this case, two provisional seizures are executed on the above apartment with a claim amount of at least 64 million won and the right to collateral security is established on the basis of the maximum debt amount of at least 130 million won. The actual value of the above apartment seems to be much less than 100 million won, and the defendant is a person who has no sufficient ability to repay (Evidence No. 610 of the evidence record). As examined below, the defendant used his personal debt or living expenses, etc. different from the purpose of the business fund notified to the victim of the loan of this case. In light of the fact that the defendant did not fully repay the loan amount of this case until the expiration of 6 years from the time of the crime of this case, the criminal intent of defraudation by the defendant is the crime of fraud.