beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, although the court below found the fact that the defendant acquired the right of lease formally from the victim E to a third party for the purpose of repaying the claim against the victim and acquired the pecuniary profit equivalent to the principal lease deposit, such as the facts charged, by transferring the right of lease to the third party for the purpose of repaying the claim against the victim, the court below acquitted the defendant on the basis
2. Determination
A. On January 20, 2013, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case stated that “The Defendant would obtain a loan of KRW 25 million from the bank within one week, if he/she had a dispute in relation to the claim and obligation between the victim E and the victim, who was known of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul and the second floor of Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, and that “H” located in Jongno-gu Seoul, his/her mother’s name (hereinafter “this case’s main point”) changed the lease agreement and the simplified taxable business registration in his/her name.”
However, in fact, the Defendant did not speak of the Defendant since he thought that he had changed the name of the right of lease of this case to the Defendant and sold it to another person.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and taking over the right to lease of the instant main station from the victim on January 2013, 2013, acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 10 million of the deposit for lease of the said main office.
B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated as to the facts charged of this case, the lower court determined that the Defendant and the victim attempted to obtain a loan from a financial institution by changing the name of F in the name of the right of lease by mutual agreement, but this did not seem to exist, and that the victim intended to acquire a profit equivalent to the premium by transferring the said right of lease to a third party. Accordingly, the victim’s statement is believed.