The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. According to the consistent victim’s statement, etc. consistent with the gist of the grounds for appeal, the victim cannot be deemed to have implicitly understood the application for the return on loss of the passbook or the prohibition of withdrawal, and the defendant is sufficiently recognized to have had an intention to interfere with business, and the application for the report on loss of the passbook or the prohibition of withdrawal constitutes a force
Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the charges on different premise. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) from January 201 to February 7, 2017, the Defendant borrowed expenses incurred in opening the “C” franchise store, which is a cosmetic wholesale store, to the victim B from around January 201 to around February 7, 201; and (b) leased a total of KRW 1.840,00 million on several occasions under the name of the Defendant, and (c) leased a total of KRW 1.84,00 million on several occasions; (b) the Defendant was registered in the name of the Defendant in the name of “C” franchise store, D store, E store, and three store stores in the name of the Defendant, “C” store, “C” store, large store, and “Cheongp store” store, and (c) the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant’s wife was registered in the name of “F,” and (c) opened the account in the name of the Defendant, and thereafter allowing the victim to use it for each franchise store business.
As can be seen, the Defendant, while lending money to the victim and receiving the principal and interest of the loan on the 19th day of each month, sold part of the store to another person without the consent of the Defendant, and did not pay the principal and interest of the loan that is to be paid on January 19, 2018, with the intent to secure the Defendant’s credit, had the victim reported the loss of the passbook to each account in the name of the Defendant and F and applied for the prohibition of withdrawal, so as to prevent the Defendant from performing the transaction of opening and withdrawing each store using
On January 20, 2018, the Defendant bank at a non-permanent place.