beta
Text
The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, who received the delivery of the investment money from the victimized party, was merely investing in the name of the victimized party on behalf of the victimized party, and did not borrow the money from the victimized party, and there is no profit from the Defendant
B. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court (3 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. On December 11, 2008, the Defendant would pay the victim D profits by lending money to him/her, with the knowledge of the source of investment where he/she would make an investment.
The term "absing to be issued KRW 11 million as a loan, and received KRW 37 million in total under the name of the loan, such as KRW 6 million around May 28, 2009, and KRW 20 million around January 19, 2012.
However, since the investment scheme in which the Defendant intended to make an investment did not check the specific business details, and since it was an enterprise operated in the inner multilevel, it is uncertain to recover the principal and interest due to business prospects. Since the Defendant did not borrow money from the damaged party in 2007 due to the absence of particular assets, there was no intention or ability to change it as promised.
Nevertheless, the defendant, as described above, obtained 37 million won as a loan by deceiving the victim and acquired it by fraud.
B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the victim transferred a total of KRW 17,00,000 to the account under the name of the defendant around December 11, 2008 and around May 28, 2009, and on January 19, 2009, a young child remitted a total of KRW 20,000,00 to the account under the name of the defendant at the defendant's request. The facts charged in this case are recognized that the defendant would pay the defendant a profit by lending money to the victim, but the investment company that the defendant intended to make an investment is not obligated to do so.