beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to all the evidence of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of the legal principles), the court below erred in finding the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case due to misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, although the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he borrowed money from the victim and received the borrowed money without the intent or ability to repay, as well as by borrowing money.
2. Determination
A. On February 6, 2012, the summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, at the New Savings Bank located in Franshion (hereinafter referred to as Suwon-dong) on the ground in D, planned to build 6 gates on the ground in D. The construction work now may reduce the construction cost if the construction work goes out in advance. If the construction work is carried out, the Defendant would purchase the steel bars in advance and sell them in lots at no later than six months a year by constructing the gate, and would make it possible to pay the full amount of the borrowed money to the Defendant.”
However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to purchase the iron for the construction of the penta, and there was no intention or ability to pay the said money due to the absence of any particular property or income.
The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim and receiving KRW 194,80,000 from the victim to May 9, 2013, received the total amount of KRW 290,000,000,000 from around seven times, including the list of crimes in the attached Table of the lower judgment (hereinafter “the list of crimes”), from around that time to around July 2013.
B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor was the purpose of the Defendant and borrowed money from the victim, and the Defendant borrowed the instant loan without the intent or ability of the Defendant to repay.