사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal argues that the Defendant received the money in the facts charged from the victim D as a loan for the multiple types of business operations. However, the Defendant continuously reversed the Defendant’s statement since the investigative agency on the source of funds for the multiple types of business operations. Of the above statements, some of the above statements are inconsistent with the F’s statement at the investigative agency and the multiples of the E, and H’s statement that took over the multiples of the Defendant from the Defendant, and the Defendant personally used the deposit for the multiples of business operations and avoided contact with the victim. In full view of the fact that the Defendant borrowed the money recorded in the facts charged from the victim under the victim’s intent of deception, as alleged consistently by the victim.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case by deceiving the victim and acquiring the money in the name of the borrowed money is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. According to the records of this case, the court below deemed that the defendant paid the defendant a total of KRW 16,452,630 over eight times during the period of approximately one month, namely, ① the defendant paid a total of KRW 16,452,630 to the defendant. At the time, the relationship between the defendant and the victim was highly likely to have been individually close, beyond the extent of lending business funds, ② there is no objective evidence to deem the above money as a loan because the defendant did not prepare a loan certificate, receipt, etc. while paying the above money, and personal and physical security was not provided. ③ According to the testimony of E, the victim, who is his/her father, was married with the defendant, and the victim said that he/she was able to live together with the defendant in the process, ④ the victim was accompanied when the defendant purchased the vehicle for multiple delivery, and the contact was made after the aggravation of the relationship with the defendant.