beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal, I’s statement in the investigative agency and E’s legal statement, etc., the Defendant did not deceiving the victim. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant, even if he borrowed money as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, he shall obtain the victim a total of KRW 48 million as borrowed money without intent or ability to repay it.
① The Defendant stated that “the Defendant would pay interest of KRW 2 million per month to a substitute driving company” to the victim. However, according to the I’s statement (No. 10-11 of the evidence record) and investment agreement (No. 2 of the evidence record) with the investigative agency, the Defendant received each payment of KRW 50 million on September and October 201, and KRW 3 million on November 201 of the same year after investing in I, the representative of the substitute driving company, at around September 2012, and then received each payment of KRW 50 million on September and 10, 201 and KRW 3 million on November 201 of the same year at the time the Defendant told the victim (No. 29, Oct. 29, 2013).
There is no objective material to view.
(B) The Defendant submitted the details of remittance from August 1, 2013 to February 8, 2014 to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, but no objective evidence exists to deem that the money deposited from the account under the name of the Defendant was the profit the I paid by the I, and no record of payment was received after February 8, 2014). (2) The Defendant asserts that the Defendant only invested the money received from the victim under his/her own name and did not borrow the money.
The fact that the injured party testified to the effect that he invested in the substitute driving company in the court of the court below, and that I stated to the effect that he received additional investment around October 2013, but investment in the substitute driving company claimed by the defendant is made money to the injured party.