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, the defendant purchased a site equivalent to KRW 1.6 billion, constructed a plan to sell a neighborhood living facility on the ground, and received an investment by inducing the victim to the partner, and the victim refused to do so, and the victim did not borrow the money from the victim, but did not have the intent or ability to return it, it can be acknowledged that the defendant would have borrowed KRW 400 million from the victim by deceiving the victim to borrow KRW 400 million from the part payment of the land.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is the substantial representative of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) established on April 22, 201 for the purpose of general construction business, etc. as an internal director of the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”).
On June 2010, the Defendant was planning to secure and develop the gas station site located G (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Ansan-si Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) as the owner of F (hereinafter “F”) around June 2010.
Around January 201, the Defendant proposed to make an investment to the victim I who became aware of the female Hah from the end of March 201, but the program was refused by the Defendant and was not scheduled. On April 201, 201, the Defendant made a false statement that “if the Defendant borrowed KRW 400 million to be used for the new construction of the building, the Defendant would pay KRW 80 million including the principal amount of KRW 400 million within 10 million, to the victim in the mutual influent restaurant located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul around April 201.”
However, in fact, the Defendant did not secure funds for purchasing the instant real estate at the time, and there was no intention or ability to repay the money within the agreed period even if the Defendant borrowed business funds from the victim, because the Defendant did not secure funds for purchasing the instant real estate properly.
Nevertheless, it is not possible.