beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) did not guilty of the facts charged of this case in spite of deceiving the complainant without intent or ability to perform the act of murder at the time of borrowing each of the funds of this case, the court below acquitted the defendant on the facts charged of this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension
2. The facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below
A. On December 17, 2010, the Defendant stated in the instant charges that, within the scope of 505 of the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon Seodong C Building 505, “The business funds are insufficient to run a used car brokerage business. If the Defendant borrowed money, he/she would have to pay the interest on the third part of the month by July 28, 201, while paying the interest thereon.”
However, the Defendant was in a state of being properly operated because the used car brokerage business was not properly operated, and there was no intention or ability to pay interest and principal on a timely basis, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim because the Defendant was unable to pay interest on a timely basis due to the lack of any specific profits except living expenses.
The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, received KRW 10 million from the victim to the account under the name of the Defendant for the purpose of borrowing money, and acquired the total amount of KRW 3 million on December 30, 201, KRW 9 million on January 7, 2011, KRW 8 million on January 8, 201, KRW 500,000 on January 15, 201, KRW 26 million on January 15, 201, KRW 7 million on January 20, 201, KRW 13 million on January 20, 201, KRW 200,000 on January 27, 201, KRW 13 million on January 27, 201, KRW 300,000 on the pretext of transfer, respectively.
B. The lower court determined: (1) the victim appears to have lent the instant money to a used car sales business, such as profitability, while (2) the Defendant appears to have used all the borrowed money from the victim as the purchase price for used cars (the victim voluntarily submitted details of the use of the corresponding money). (3)