beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the defendant acquired money from the victim under the name of borrowed money without the intention or ability to repay the money, so the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension
2. Determination
A. On March 11, 2013, the Defendant stated in the facts charged that “The Defendant, at a coffee shop located in the Seo-gu Multiple Dong-gu Daejeon, offered to the victim B a bid to provide funeral supplies, and if the price of goods is insufficient, he/she would immediately pay the outstanding amount to the victim B within one month if he/she borrowed KRW 10 million.”
However, the Defendant invested KRW 200 million in D around April 2012, but did not receive any profit therefrom. Since the Defendant was actually used as the price for the card of the person who received the price for the goods from C Hospital and the wage for employees, there was no intention or ability to repay the money borrowed from the victim.
Ultimately, the Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 10 million from the victim’s E-Union account in the name of the Defendant, and subsequently, received KRW 40 million from that time until March 26, 2013, such as the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment, on three occasions as indicated in the list of crimes.
B. In full view of the following facts and circumstances recognized by the record, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the Defendant deceptioned the victim without any intent or ability to repay as stated in the facts charged and acquired the money without any reasonable doubt.
In addition to the fact that the defendant did not delay his/her obligation to financial institutions from September 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013 (the response of the above L/C corporation), which was the time when the defendant borrowed the above KRW 40 million from the victim, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.