beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below
A. The summary of the facts charged is the difference between the victim B and the victim B from September 2015 to August 2016. The Defendant was indicted to the effect that “the Defendant deceptiond about the intent or ability to repay the money even if he/she borrowed money from the victim, but he/she did not have any desire to use it for the personal purpose, such as repayment of debts, and did not have any desire to use it. In addition, even if he/she did not have any convenience store or apartment in the name of the Defendant and no other specific property, and he/she did not have any intention or ability to repay the money borrowed from the victim without any specific property, the prosecutor added the purport that it constitutes “the act of deception as to the use of the money for rent” to the effect that “the Defendant, however, did not have any convenience store or apartment in the name of the Defendant, and there was no specific property,” by stating that “the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to repay the money from the victim.” However, according to the recommendation of the lower court,
Around January 20, 2016, the victim made a false statement to the effect that he/she would repay money to the victim because he/she has received a demand for the payment of money. It is to be paid in the future with an apartment and convenience store in the future, and that he/she received KRW 2 million from the victim to a cooperative account in the name of the defendant, and received from around that time to August 25, 2016, and acquired it by obtaining KRW 21.2 million in total as a loan from the victim 18 times in total, as shown in the list of crimes in attached Table, as shown in the list of crimes.
B. In the lower court’s determination, the Defendant asserted that he was not guilty on the ground that he had no intention to commit fraud with respect to the facts charged of this case, and the lower court, as to the fraud of each of the loans listed in the Nos. 3 through 8, 10 through 13, 15, and 18 of the facts charged of this case, concerning the use of the borrowed money.