사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant made a false statement concerning the purpose of the borrowed money at the time of borrowing money from the injured party, and that he/she made a false statement concerning the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money.
The judgment of the court below which denied the establishment of a crime of fraud on the ground that the deception of the defendant cannot be recognized, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. We examine the relevant legal principles as to the facts charged (a) and whether the facts concerning the fraud Nos. 1 through 12 among the facts charged are erroneous (b) and whether the facts concerning the fraud Nos. 13 through 32 among the crimes charged are erroneous in the order of paragraph (c).
A. 1) A related legal doctrine 1) In a case where, in borrowing money from a third party to a deception for the next use, the other party did not respond to the preparation of funds to repay out of the borrowed money if he/she did not respond to the true notice, it would constitute a crime of fraud if he/she received money by notifying the other party of the fact contrary to the truth regarding the purpose and method of raising the repayment funds (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do5382, Sept. 15, 2005; 201Do10461, Dec. 22, 2011).
After borrowing money, if it is recognized that it was used for the purpose of repaying the existing debt, which is most urgent, there was a criminal intent of deception in borrowing money.
We can see (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do2588 delivered on January 15, 1993, Supreme Court Decision 2001Do883 delivered on April 10, 2001). 3) The presumption of guilt leads to a judge’s conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt.