beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below (1) The summary of the facts charged in this case as modified by the court below are as follows.
① Defendant B demanded the Defendant A to borrow money from his wife as it is necessary to make an investment in the F Tour operated by the wife, and Defendant A knew that Defendant A had resided in adjoining areas for twenty-five years on May 11, 2007 and had been living in the area for twenty-five years, and made a false statement that “I would immediately lend money to the victim. I would have to pay the money.”
However, at the time, the above travel agent was unable to pay the wages to the employees, and the amount of the Defendants’ debt was equivalent to KRW 500 million, and since the real estate owned by the Defendants was established with a security right exceeding the market price, there was no intent and ability to repay the said money even if it was borrowed from the victim.
Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to deception the victim as above and acquired the amount of KRW 20 million from the victim to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant B as the borrowed money on the same day.
② Defendant B demanded that Defendant A lend money from a son to repay his debt due to the aggravation of the financial situation, and Defendant A made a false statement that Defendant A would lend money to the victim on June 11, 2007, stating that “A would have to repay money to the victim because the company operating Maeeeeeeeng has a difference in lending money while in the insolvent crisis.”
However, in fact, Defendant B’s travel agent did not pay wages to his employees, and there was no possibility of making profits. The Defendants’ personal debt was equivalent to KRW 500 million, and the ownership of real estate was established with a security right exceeding the market price, and the Defendants did not enter the market on June 12, 2007, and most of the borrowed money from the victims were thought to be used as the personal debt repayment for the Defendants, and thus, the money from the victims.