사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the victim KK stated that the amount to be settled is different from the amount to be settled by the defendant and the amount stated in the facts charged is not the settlement amount, but the amount to be loaned to the defendant; (b) therefore, K cannot affect the deception of the defendant; (c) the fact that K manages the defendant's funds is merely an undertaking not to be a sexual intent; (d) the fact that the defendant would have the name of the child care center facility of this case in the name of K at the time of deception is merely a promise in the circumstance where the defendant's money was paid, and (e) G child care center provided as security was fully deducted from the deposit paid by the defendant due to the failure to reach a monthly rent, and thus there was no intention to
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who actually operates or is operating the D Child Care Center, E Child Care Center, F Child Care Center, G Child Care Center, H Child Care Center, I Child Care Center, and J Child Care Center, under the name of many people in Seoul, Pyeongtaek, etc.
피고인은 2011년 11월 초순경 서울 송파구 거여역 주변에서 피해자 K에게 "내가 경기도 가평군 L에 F 어린이집(이하 ‘이 사건 어린이집’이라고 한다)을 운영할 자리를 봐 놨는데 임대금 및 인테리어 시설비가 부족하니 돈을 빌려주고, 신용카드를 사용할 수 있게 해 달라. 그러면 담보조로 임차인 명의를 K 이름으로 하고, 그 어린이집의 대표자 및 원장으로 등록시켜주겠다."라고 거짓말을 하였다.
However, the defendant did not think of the name of the tenant of the above child-care center in the name of the victim, and did not think of the representative or the president of the above child-care center as the victim, and borrowed money from the victim.