사기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to the records of the trial at the court below, the prosecutor appealed the defendant's victim H on November 30, 2009; 39.6 million won on February 1, 2010; 50 million won on February 1, 2010; 15.4 million won on August 17, 2010; 200,000 won on the victim J; 30,000 won on the victim J; 30,000 won on the victim N; 30,000 won on the part of November 30, 201; 30,000 won on the part of the victim N; 40,000 won on the remainder of the charges of fraud; and 30,000 won on the part of the defendant on December 14, 2011; 300,000 won on the remainder of the charges of fraud; and 307,00,000 won on the part of the defendant.
Therefore, the part of the acquittal of the defendant and the prosecutor who did not appeal is separately determined by the expiration of the appeal period, and the scope of the trial at the court below is limited to the part of the conviction of the judgment below, so only this part shall be subject to the trial at the court below.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. It is reasonable for the Defendant to borrow money from the victims as stated in the judgment of the court below, such as misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.
① However, after the Defendant borrowed money, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the interest exceeding the leased principal or the Interest Limitation Act at the time, and in particular, for the purpose of interest at a high rate regardless of the purpose of the loan in the case of the victim H, J, M, and K, and in particular, K borrowed money with the knowledge that the purpose of the loan is F’s operating capital. Therefore, there was no deceptive act at the time. ② Even if this is not so, the Defendant already paid the interest to the victim H, J, L, and N exceeding the bounds of the Interest Limitation Act, and thus, is reasonable.