beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of reasons for appeal: Fact-misunderstanding;
A. As to the fraud, there was no collateral value for the Defendant’s certificate 26 of the sealing that the Defendant provided to the victim. In light of the Defendant’s property status at the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money.
However, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged, so it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The victim was a legitimate holder of the deposit amount of KRW 300 million, and the shareholders who hold 2/3 or more of the total shares of the L/C in the agreement with the defendant were entitled to consent to the withdrawal. As to the withdrawal of the deposit amount of KRW 300 million, the defendant's accusation of the victim by embezzlement is without merit.
However, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged, so it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. 1) The lower court’s determination as to the fraud, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and investigated by the prosecutor, that the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed amount solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.
It is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.
① At the time when the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant was not in a state of holding a valid transfer of the right to manage the Jmo Park from Ful G.
Even if it is true that at least approximately 2,000 of the 2,000 bill was held, it seems that it had been true.
② The Defendant borrowed KRW 26 million from the injured party, and provided the victim with the 26th of the J Anmo Park Ho-park’s rewing certificate as security.
Although the price per unit is unclear, the defendant's business agreement with the Onnuri Synuri Synuri case is not clear.