beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) does not lend money to the victim under the name of the company operation fund (payment of unpaid interior expenses), but merely borrowed money for personal purposes (living expenses and operating expenses). Therefore, the defendant did not have obtained money by deceiving the use.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. The deception as an act of fraud of the relevant legal doctrine is sufficient if it does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is related to the facts that form the basis of the judgment for allowing an actor to perform the act of disposal of property that he/she wishes. Therefore, in the case of taking advantage of money and taking advantage of money, if the other party would have not borrowed money if he/she had notified the true purpose of use, it shall be deemed that the deception, which is an act of crime of fraud, has been committed.
(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do2828 delivered on February 27, 1996, and Supreme Court Decision 95Do707 delivered on September 15, 1995, etc.). B.
Judgment
In light of the following facts and circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined at the lower court, the Defendant appears to have borrowed money from the victim while stating that the amount to pay the company’s human life expenses is necessary. If the Defendant was notified of the genuine purpose of use, it would have been assumed that the Defendant was not able to obtain the loan from the victim and the Defendant was not able to obtain the loan from the victim due to the bad credit holder at the time when the Defendant was in front of the individual rehabilitation procedure, and that the Defendant’s act constitutes deception in the crime of fraud.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
1. First of all, the victim consistently lent money to the defendant by consistently stating that "the defendant lends money to pay the accounts payable at the company's interior", and he borrowed money from the defendant at his own expense.