beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On May 2007, the summary of the facts charged of the instant case stated that “The Defendant would make repayment without framework by lending money to the victim D, a resident of the Seo-gu Incheon apartment complex, Seo-gu, Incheon, where the Defendant had worked as a security guard, at a mutual influent restaurant located in the Incheon Si-si, Incheon.”
However, in fact, the defendant did not have any particular property at the time, as well as the apartment security guards' monthly wage and the proceeds from the business in the leaflet are insufficient to use them as living expenses, so even if he borrowed money from the injured party, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay
The Defendant, as such, by deceiving the victim, received from the injured party the sum of KRW 10 million, including KRW 20 million around May 2007, KRW 30 million around June 2007, KRW 50 million around July 2007, and KRW 10 million around May 2008, from the victim’s house of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, 302 Dong 609, and KRW 609,000,000 from the victim’s house.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant and his defense counsel separately prepared a loan certificate for KRW 100 million borrowed on or around May 7, 2007 and KRW 10 million borrowed on or around May 7, 2008, respectively. The money borrowed on or around May 2007 loaned from D as a fund for business preparation. The money borrowed on or around around 2008 borrowed from another person in the name of travel expenses and business operation expenses. Since D borrowed from another person in the name of travel expenses and business operation expenses, it cannot be deemed as a single comprehensive crime because the details and source of the loan differ, and thus it cannot be deemed as a single and continuous crime. Thus, the statute of limitations has expired for the charge of the fraud of the borrowed money was completed, and ② Even if each of the charges charged on domestic affairs constitute a single comprehensive crime, the Defendant did not mislead D about his ability to repay, and there was no intention to obtain fraud.
The argument is asserted.
B. As to the first argument, the same victim is an identical victim in property crimes, such as health bond and fraud.