Even if the above money is assumed to have been given as investment money, the defendant is recognized to have obtained the said money from the injured party by deceiving the victim to the effect that he would return the said money and the proceeds, even though he did not have the intent or ability to return the money and the proceeds in light of the financial status, business situation, etc. at the time.

2. Determination

A. On November 27, 2013, the Defendant stated that “D” stores located in the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (U.S.) should be paid to the victim with money borrowed from Thailand and there is a shortage of money in doing construction business.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had no experience related to the importation and construction business of Thailand, and had no prior preparation or specific business plan related to the said business, so there was no intention or ability to repay the money even if he borrowed money from the injured party.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 2 million from the Defendant’s husband F to the account under the name of her husband F on the same day from the victim, and received KRW 27,200,000 from the time to May 27, 2014, and acquired the money by remitting KRW 27,20,000 through nine times in total.

B. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor, which states detailed circumstances in the item of judgment, and the amount of KRW 27.2 million, which the defendant received from the injured party, was delivered as the borrowed money as stated in the facts charged.