Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact mistake: The Defendant did not deceiving the victim at the time and place stated in the facts charged, nor did he had the intent to commit the crime by deception.
B. Sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
2. On November 25, 2014, the Defendant entered into a credit transaction agreement between the victim and the employee of the savings bank in charge of the savings bank account account account in consideration of the victim's savings bank to obtain a loan of KRW 232,471 on the 26th day of each month, and received a remittance of KRW 8 million to the post office deposit account in his/her name on the same day, as the Defendant would have had no intent or ability to repay the principal and interest even if he/she received a loan.
3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
(a) In a consumption lending and lending transaction, where the lender was aware of the credit standing of the borrower and could have anticipated or could have anticipated the risk of delay in the future or impossibility of repayment, barring any other circumstances, such as the borrower has made a false statement as to material facts which could determine whether to grant a loan for consumption or lending in connection with the specific intent of repayment, legal capacity, and the following terms and conditions at the time of borrowing, the borrower was aware that he/she was unaware of his/her ability to repay with the mere fact that he/she was unable to fully repay, or that he/she was guilty of the fraud.
Nor can it be readily concluded (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14516, Apr. 2, 2016). The recognition of guilt should be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it should be determined as the benefit of the defendant, which is a subjective element of fraud.