beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal rejected the victim’s consistent statement in the investigative agency or court of the court below that the Defendant obtained the loan from the Defendant without any reasonable grounds. In particular, at the time of July 16, 2013, the last money was borrowed, resulting in a disturbance in the operation of the bonds and the financial condition of the Defendant significantly deteriorated, and thus, at least there was a criminal intent to obtain the loan from the Defendant at least around that time.
must be viewed.
However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On September 5, 2011, the Defendant in the facts charged may obtain a large amount of interest income from the victim E in Ulsan-gu C located in Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, with the victim’s “Is much people to pay money, and may also obtain a large amount of interest from the customer E to give money to the customer.
If a person lends surplus money to another person, he/she shall pay interest on the third part of the month, and the principal shall be settled last.
“.....”
However, as the Defendant started the bond business without his own capital, the bond business is highly likely to be recovered due to its nature. At the time, the Defendant did not have a certain income because he did not have any specific property and did not have any intention or ability to pay properly the money borrowed from the victim and the agreed interest.
The Defendant, as seen above, received KRW 5,00,000 from the injured party as the borrowed money, from the Defendant’s mother’s mother F account, from the time on July 2013, and acquired KRW 68,000,000 in total on 27 occasions as shown in the crime inundation table, from that time, from that time to that time.
B. The lower court’s judgment determined as follows, comprehensively taking account of the various evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the victim, who operated corporate bonds with the amount borrowed from the victim from the beginning, thereby gaining interest therefrom to the victim.