beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Although it is sufficient to recognize the facts charged in this case in full view of the evidence presented by the prosecutor in the summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged in this case on the grounds that there is no proof of a crime is erroneous in
2. Judgment of the court of original judgment
A. A. Around June 7, 2005, the summary of the facts charged of this case stated that “The Defendant, at the Defendant’s office located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, a victim E, the owner of Seongbuk-gu D Site 175 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), “A new apartment house is planned to build a new apartment house on the instant land, but if the said land is sold at KRW 265 million, the down payment shall be immediately paid and the remainder shall be paid within two months after the completion of multi-household house.”
However, the Defendant, as a person of bad credit standing, has accumulated the liabilities equivalent to approximately KRW 1.5 billion due to the loan of financial institutions, debentures, national taxes in arrears, etc., as well as the situation in which construction costs and land prices have been raised by the formula of “fluoring” in a large number of places without any special capital, and thus, there was no intention or ability to pay all the land prices to the victim.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was subject to the right to use and dispose of the instant land equivalent to KRW 265 million at the market price from the victim, and newly built multi-household houses on the said land. Around June 9, 2005, the Defendant borrowed a loan of KRW 50 million (the maximum bond amount of KRW 65 million) as security around June 9, 2005.
7. November 8, 198, 200,000 won (the maximum amount of credit KRW 110,500,000) obtained pecuniary benefits, such as loans.
B. Although evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case has been presented at the investigative agency and the court, the above evidence is acknowledged by the record, in light of the facts and circumstances that are seen below.