사기
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the victim stated in the investigative agency that he leased KRW 100 million to the defendant with interest agreement with the due date as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “the lending of this case”); (b) it is difficult to deem that the victim did not have an agreement on the due date and interest solely on the grounds that the victim did not demand repayment of the loan of this case; (c) it appears that the victim would not have been in a contractual relationship with the defendant, but rather be able to receive the loan that was continued in the workplace; (d) notwithstanding the financial status of P operated by the defendant, despite the financial situation of P, the financial condition of the defendant was exceeded; and (e) the defendant stated in the investigative agency that if he did not borrow KRW 100 million from the victim, he could not purchase the land stated in the facts charged, and the land offered as security was purchased by the victim with the intent to lend KRW 180,000,000,000,000 from around 201.
Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. The judgment below is the statement of the victim that evidence that corresponds to the defendant's deception of the victim by entering into a maturity and interest agreement as stated in the facts charged.