beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is reasonable to deem that the victim C was aware that the real estate mortgage loan will be implemented on August 24, 2010, and allowed the loan to invest in the "Fel" construction project in the "Fel E" located in Hong-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, and thus, carried out property disposal disposition as the Defendant provided the passbook and cash card, etc. In addition, the Defendant was aware that the loan was made as if it was invested in the Felel, and only part of the loan was received and delivered to D, and the remainder was used for the repayment of some of the real estate mortgage loan owned by the victim who was arbitrarily used by the Defendant, and thus, the intent of the
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant would bring about KRW 4 billion out of the profits accrued from the accommodation business in order to construct a Felel to D Hong-gun E at the Seongbuk-si Saemaul Undong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, around August 24, 2010 to the victim C.
If you make an investment in the construction project, you will return the principal of the investment and pay the profit.
“The phrase “ was false.”
However, at the time of fact, the above Fel building was not completed and it was not clear that the accommodation business was properly implemented, and the defendant thought that part of the amount he was paid from the injured party, unlike the victim's end, and there was no intention or ability to return the principal of the investment to the victim or to pay the profit.
Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 380 million from the victim of the damage, from the Saemaul Bank of Korea on August 24, 2010, under the name of investment, from the Saemaul Bank of Korea, which was issued to the victim of the damage.
B. The lower court’s judgment determined as follows based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, i.e., (i) the loans extended on August 24, 2010, as follows; and (ii) July 2010.