beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. Around November 2006, the Defendant became aware of the instant facts charged on the main point of “E” operated by the dynamics of the victim D located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, as a customer, of the victim D.
Around November 2006, the Defendant stated that “B is making a stock investment while graduating graduated from the department of biological life at the Seoul National University, and going beyond the study, and is the month of stock investment. B is receiving the money to B, the Defendant said that “B will pay the interest on every three occasions as a stock investment and return the principal.”
However, the Defendant did not graduate from the Seoul National University, and around that time, the Defendant was making a loan from the victims as well as many people, and was raising living expenses through the investment of the said shares, and in view of the loss from stock investment due to the absence of any particular property, there was no intention or ability to pay the principal and interest to the victim.
Nevertheless, the Defendant made such a false statement, as above, and obtained from the victim the sum of KRW 20 million on or around December 8, 2006, KRW 20 million on or around January 3, 2007, KRW 10 million on or around March 2, 2007, and KRW 30 million on or around March 6, 2007, respectively, from each of the Defendant’s new bank accounts in the name of the new bank (F).
2. Determination
A. In light of the fact that on November 8, 2006, the defendant first received KRW 20 million from the victim on December 8, 2006, the defendant prepared a cash custody certificate stating that "the defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the victim and shall pay the principal upon the expiration of the period of three months," and that until February 2008, the defendant did not pay the principal at all to the victim despite the fact that the defendant made profits from stock investment until February 2008, and that there was a false statement that the defendant was hospitalized at the Ampha Hospital to avoid the victim, it is true that there is a doubt about the defendant's guilt.
B. However, the record is known.