beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In light of the economic condition at the time of the instant crime, the gist of the grounds of appeal by the Defendant was sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant, even though the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the loan to F within three months and cancel the mortgage established on the real estate owned by the victim, by deceiving the victim, thereby creating a mortgage on the real estate owned by the victim, acquired financial gains equivalent to the value of the collateral held by the victim, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting
2. Determination
A. On April 4, 201, the Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 100 million from the victim E (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) at the D Judicial scrivener Office located in Geum-gu, Busan (hereinafter referred to as “C”); (b) on a total of five parcels of land, including Yangsan City G, which was owned by the victim, the Defendant would pay the amount within three months after receiving payment from the customer; and (c) would have cancelled the right to collateral.
A false statement was made.
However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from F with the collateral provided from the damaged person in the state of bad credit from around 2001, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the collateral or to make a lawsuit against the Defendant.
The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, had the victim submit the documents related to the establishment of the right to collateral to each of the above real estate to the person in charge of the above certified judicial scrivener, and had the victim set up the right to collateral in F’s name the maximum amount of KRW 195 million on each of the above real estate, and acquired financial gains equivalent to KRW 13 million after deducting the maximum amount of the claim amount of KRW 167 million from the market price of the above real estate.
B. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, recognized the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and subsequently, found such facts and circumstances.