beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, while there was no intent or ability to resolve the auction problem of the Syunna located in the 11st floor of the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building (hereinafter “the instant building”), the Defendant, as if the victims could be resolved by the deadline for the agreement, acquired 60 million won under the name of the deposit for the deposit for the lease of syunnasium by deceiving the victims.
In addition, if the defendant is unable to solve the auction problem according to the agreement, he did not have the intention or ability to return the deposit to the victims.
Therefore, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, although it could sufficiently recognize the Defendant’s criminal intent by deception.
2. Determination
A. On January 30, 2013, the Defendant concluded a loan agreement with the victim E and F within the “D” located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jung-gu, Seoul, under which the voluntary auction procedure was in progress, and suggested that “The Defendant would resolve the auction issue by June 15, 2013, and return the money received without the resolution.”
However, on July 3, 2012, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to cancel an auction or to redeem security money as agreed on June 15, 2013 with respect to the above so-called so-called safafafafafafafafafafafafafa, for which a decision to commence an auction was made
Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victims as such, received a total of KRW 10 million under the pretext of contract deposit around January 30, 2013, KRW 10 million as the contract deposit, KRW 10 million as of January 31, 2013, and KRW 40 million as of intermediate payment on February 1, 2013.
B. In light of the following circumstances after recognizing the circumstances as stated in the record, the lower court determined that the Defendant, only the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, concluded a tax credit lease contract with the victims, and acquired it by deception.