beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. When considering the summary of the grounds for appeal and the circumstances living together by the defendant and the victim, and the victim's ability to thinking and judge due to industrial accidents, the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant was living together with the victim who lacks the ability to thinking and judge due to industrial accidents and acquired money by borrowing money without value as security.
However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is that there was no money that the Defendant did not have any particular job, and there was no money that the Defendant had any actual value as the right to collateral security was established on the land under the name of the Defendant, and there was little real value on the land under the name of the Defendant, so the so-called “prevention from returning” is difficult to properly repay the interest accrued on the existing obligation due to the fact that there was no economic difficulty. Therefore, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim C, there was no intention or ability to properly repay it.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around May 15, 2015, borrowed money from the Defendant’s house located in the Donan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, North Korea, to the victim within six months if he/she borrowed money from the Defendant’s house with another place.
“A false statement” was made.
The Defendant received 20,000,000 won from the injured party as a loan, and received 45,000,000 won in total from the injured party by the same method four times from the injured party, such as the list of crimes as shown in the attached Table of the lower judgment, from August 17, 2015 to August 17, 2015.
B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment did not have reasonable doubt as to the Defendant’s false statement to the victim as stated in the facts charged and the Defendant had had had had intention to commit fraud at the time.