beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant believed that the Defendant would be able to repay the borrowed money with the proceeds from the loan because he had been conducting two construction works at the time of borrowing money from the victim. However, the Defendant was unable to repay the borrowed money with the wind that does not generate the proceeds from the settlement of accounts after the completion of construction, and the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of all the facts charged in this case even though the Defendant did not have the intent to deceive or defraud the victim at the time of borrowing the said money, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's legitimately adopted and investigated evidence, the defendant can be recognized as having obtained 100 million won from the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, and this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
① The Defendant, at the time of borrowing money from the victim, was obligated to pay approximately KRW 65 million and the deposit balance is below KRW 2,300,000,000. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant had financial capability to repay the borrowed money to the victim, in addition to the construction cost to be received from E.
② At the time of borrowing money from the victim, the Defendant said that there was KRW 300 million in the amount of money to be received from E and that the Defendant would receive the said money to repay the borrowed money. However, at the time, the existence or scale of the Defendant’s profit that the Defendant would receive from E was uncertain, and there was almost no actual occurrence of the profit.
(3) The defendant is fully paid the construction price according to the ratio E.