사기
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay money to the exporter even if he/she borrowed money from around July 2008 to a low business progress by collecting and selling waste clothing in the apartment complex to the exporter from around 2012, such as reducing the emission of waste recycled products and lowering the unit price per month due to the decline in the emission of waste recycled products.
On May 2, 2012, the Defendant concealed this fact at the D office operated by the Defendant at Yangyang-si Co., Ltd. on May 2, 2012, and fraudulently made it false to the victim E, “I will make a repayment without a mold after one month from the loan of KRW 30 million for business funds.” The Defendant obtained a delivery of KRW 30 million from the damaged person as the borrowed money.
2. Determination
A. We examine whether a business operated by the Defendant, as described in the facts charged, began to take place in an amount equivalent to KRW 2,000 to KRW 30 million each month around 2012.
According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant started the business from the beginning of 2012 in the police.
Since 2012, there was a statement that the enemy began to leave, which read, “The enemy began to leave up to 3,000 won in one month.”
However, the following circumstances revealed according to the record, i.e., the Defendant stated that “the business began from September 2012 due to the power of operation” at the time of the said statement (the 66th page of the investigation record), and as a whole, “the business became difficult from the beginning of 2012 to the early of 2012, and the collection volume was reduced, so there was no choice to meet the quantity by entering into a new apartment contract with the new apartment.”
Therefore, it was the expansion of business, which stated to the purport that it was “the business was,” and the business was difficult to be known to the extent that the victim, who is an employee, was the end of 2012. The statement was made to the purport that it was “the business,” and ② the standard loan comparison table “the standard loan comparison table reported by the Defendant to the National Tax Service,” which was the net profit of the company run by the Defendant during the year 2012, 53,748.