사기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not explain the possibility of the Defendant’s operation of business other than the credit business, which is the main business, to the victim at the time of receiving the investment money from the victim, does not constitute deception. Since there was a possibility of success in the business run by the Defendant at the time, there was no intention
2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and investigated. ① Since January 6, 2010, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) operated by the Defendant did not actually engage in credit business until receiving money from the victim, and ② the Defendant was involved in the overall growth potential of the instant company and the return of profit, and the Defendant did not invest in the credit business only. However, the victim was aware that the instant company was able to secure profits from the instant company through the so-called “Srael Corporation,” which borrowed money from the obligor after the establishment of the right to claim the return of the lease deposit and the right to claim the refund of the deposit from the obligor, and it appears that the Defendant would have invested KRW 50 million in the instant company under the name of 00,000,000,0000 from the Defendant’s separate corporation on April 6, 201, and the Defendant, even after being given 00,000 won from the victim’s intent and 5.