사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The victim of the prosecutor's act deceivings the defendant as if he had the ability to repay actively
In light of the fact that the Defendant stated that the part of the interest paid to the victims was so-called "the return prevention" with other loans, and that there is no relation to the ability to repay or the intent to repay, and that the Defendant had been liable for the debt equivalent to KRW 200 million at the time of committing the crime, there is an error of law by mistake in the original judgment that there is no criminal intent to acquire the Defendant, even though it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had the criminal intent to acquire it
B. The Defendant, upon the Defendant’s permission, prepared and presented a loan certificate in the name of I (16 pages of the investigation record, hereinafter “the loan certificate in this case”). The Defendant borrowed money with the above loan certificate, and the victim H knew that the Defendant actually used the loan money. As such, the Defendant should not be recognized as forgery of private documents, the use of the above investigation document, and relevant fraud.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion are acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, i.e., ① submitted a statement that the Defendant would not forge the instant loan certificate at the time of the lower court, which appears to have been made after agreement, but the loan certificate prepared around September 19, 2012 (the 20 pages of the investigation record) is memory at the investigation stage, but the preparation of the instant loan certificate is consistently stated in the clear statement that there is no permit, ② the Defendant was allowed to borrow all the instant loan certificate by telephone to I at the time of borrowing money, but the Defendant was allowed to borrow the instant loan certificate in the name of I, and subsequent resident registration certificate was issued at the time of borrowing money, and it was also considered that I prepared a loan certificate with an I office.
The author argues that the investigation record is not more than 687 pages, however, I's permission to borrow from the name of I by telephone.