beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) The misunderstanding of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal principles did not specifically express to the victim K about the purpose of the loan amount of KRW 1.2 billion, whether to provide a security for golf loans, etc. When borrowing KRW 1.2 billion, Defendant A1 was aware of the intent to repay the loan and the ability to pay the loan amount, and Defendant had the intent to commit the crime of deception or deception, since the loan money was sufficiently provided to the victim.
shall not be deemed to exist.
In household, the defendant deceivings the use of the borrowed money and the provision of security.
Even if the victim borrowed money to the defendant in consideration of the profitability of the golf product business operated by the defendant, the recognition map of H, and the fact that the interest would assist the sale of golf loans, there is no relation between the deception and the disposal act.
2) In light of the fact that the degree of deception of the illegal defendant in sentencing is not serious, that the defendant made efforts to recover damage, but the defendant's refusal to recover damage has not been recovered, the sentence of the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. As to Defendant A’s fraud of KRW 232 million by mistake of facts) Defendant A, Defendant A borrowed a golf bond of KRW 250 million to the victim, Defendant A would purchase a new golf bond and offer it as security and pay the debt with the sales proceeds.
The purpose of the loan was falsely notified, and the golf loans provided by Defendant A were not sufficient as security and there was no ability to repay the loan. Therefore, Defendant A’s act constitutes fraud.
B) As to the Defendants’ violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement) (Embezzlement), Defendant B and the victim concluded a sales contract for golf loans and owned by the victim, the said golf loans constitute embezzlement. Therefore, the Defendants’ arbitrary disposal of the said golf loans constitutes embezzlement.
Along with a family set of golf loans, the victim is the victim.