beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant had been unable to economically and economically since one year prior to his retirement from the Daegu Facility Management Corporation; the possibility that the Defendant would have deducted assets under the name of consolation money by pretending divorces between the two spouse who re-reinsigned with the liability property to be deducted from the liability property cannot be ruled out; the public official required to pay the amount of consolation money to the extent of borrowing the money by paying interest; the liability for other financial rights was reasonable; and the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the money to E at the time of borrowing the money, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant had received the money from two persons at the same time and failed to repay the money.
Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who served as the Director of the Daegu Facilities Management Corporation D.
On December 13, 2011, the Defendant stated to the effect that “If the Defendant lent 20 million won to the victim E, he will repay the principal within six months, and the advance payment will be made first, even if a public corporation employee retires, he will repay it as a retirement allowance.”
However, the defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money on the agreed date, even if he borrowed the money from the victim, due to the fact that the credit card was repaid in the form of credit card.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, obtained 17.6 million won from the victim after deducting the interest from the victim as the borrowed money.
B. The determination of the court below is based on the point at the time of borrowing whether fraud was established through the defraudation of the 1-related legal loan, and if the defendant had the intent and ability to repay at the time of borrowing the loan.