beta
Text
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. Around March 8, 2010, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim C that “If the Defendant lends money to the victim to purchase scams, such as kimchi and salted fish, etc. to carry out funeral, she would immediately be paid in one month.”
However, in fact, the Defendant had a debt borrowed by the number of days at the time, and the rent deposit did not remain due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the monthly rent or the amount of the rent run by the Defendant. Since the payment of interest on the existing number of days was not possible due to the fact that the Defendant’s payment of interest on other debts was not possible, the Defendant did not intend to pay the interest on other debts from the victim C, but did not have any intent or ability to pay the interest even if he borrowed money from the said victim.
The defendant deceivings the victim as above and received KRW 3,00,000 for 3,00,000,000 for the purpose of borrowing from the victim, i.e., on or around April 12, 2010, KRW 3,000,00 for the same purpose as on June 21, 2010, KRW 2,000,00 for the same purpose as on July 20, 2010, KRW 3,000 for the same purpose as on July 20, 2010, KRW 3,000 for the same purpose as on October 22, 2010, and KRW 3,000 for the same purpose as on October 29, 2010, KRW 19,000 for the delivery as on or around October 3, 200.
2. Determination
A. 1) The fact that the Defendant, even though having no intent or ability to repay, was unaware of the victim’s financial position, is recognized as follows: (a) the Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 19 million from March 8, 2010 to October 29, 2010 on six occasions, as stated in the facts charged, from the victim to the victim’s financial position, and used part of the borrowed money for the payment of interest to the third party.
2) On the other hand, the Defendant continued to operate his vis-visedly, thought that the Defendant would have been able to repay the Defendant’s loan obligations to the victim, and during the process of paying interest, the Defendant’s obligation is no longer due to the Defendant’s cancellation of his vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis-vis’s business on June 2013.