사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the above judgment is publicly notified.
1. On August 26, 2010, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim D, “A person who is a construction business operator and the above loan is intended to sell it after undergoing a completion inspection. If the completion cost is insufficient, 80 million won shall be lent as completion money, and it shall be repaid within two months, and 4.8 million won shall be paid in advance, with three copies of the interest of the two months.”
However, in fact, the defendant was set up a provisional attachment on the land of Bara which was newly constructed at the time, and there were many significant parts of the construction, so it was difficult to obtain permission for completion of construction, and since there were many debts related to the land of the new construction site, there was no intention or ability to repay the money borrowed to the victim by selling the Ba within two months after obtaining permission for completion of construction.
On August 27, 2010, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 45.2 million from the account in the name of Han Bank on August 27, 2010, and acquired KRW 30 million from the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of F on the same day.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that the Defendant, at the time of borrowing money from D, was 90% or more of the construction work of lending money as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “the construction work of this case”), and D also lent money to D in direct verification of the construction site, and the Defendant provided D sufficient security, such as establishing a collateral on the six bonds among the above lending loans as collateral, and when considering the market price at the time of lending as collateral, the maximum claim amount of senior collateral security, and the amount of lending money to D, it is possible to fully repay. In light of the fact that it was possible for the Defendant to obtain payment, there was a criminal intent to obtain by deception at the time of borrowing the facts charged.
shall not be appointed by a person.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
3...