beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, as shown in the facts charged, deceiving C and acquired by deceptioning KRW 20 million, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, and erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On May 13, 201, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant called “A” by phone to C at an insular place and called “a foreign diplomat is issued to the U.S. D. D. D. D., and thus, it is no longer necessary to hold a house at the present time. It was planned to move into a three-way and small house. As the deposit money is insufficient, only KRW 20 million was lent to a third party.” If the house is currently being kept in the former place, it would immediately be repaid.”
However, in fact, the Defendant borrowed money from C with the intent to pay off the debt of personal lending from D, not to use it as a deposit for lease on a deposit basis, and, on September 16, 2010, the Goyang-dong E-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-15 (hereinafter “instant Officetel”) owned by the Defendant was awarded a successful bid to others through a voluntary auction on September 16, 2010, and the Defendant was residing in the Republic of Korea, Seoyang-gu, U.S., U.S. (hereinafter “instant Ftel”) did not have any real estate that is able to pay a deposit to others. At that time, the Defendant did not have any property under his/her own name, other than an officetel deposit, and there was no intention or ability to repay the money from C even if it was borrowed from C, such as the occurrence of a loan of KRW 10 million,000,000 in financial right.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, as mentioned above, obtained the money from C by transfer of KRW 20 million from May 25, 201.
B. The lower court’s judgment is consistent and clarity as to the witness C’s statement in the court and investigative agency, how the Defendant talks with C on the house in which the Defendant was living, when and how C came to know about the Defendant’s relocation of his residence.