The judgment below

Of them, the part on the fraud of the victim E shall be reversed.

Defendant 1,000,000 won.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor;

A. The victim C’s statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged is consistent, and F’s statement also conforms to the victim C’s statement. In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant, along with the victim C, was gambling for several days in a casino; (b) the Defendant lost money in gambling; and (c) the Defendant was able to find the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant was unable to make a statement by doping even if her mother borrowed money by doping; and (c) the Defendant was unable to do so, the victim’s statement made by the victim C is very high credibility.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which rejected the victim C's statement and acquitted the victim of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. According to the Defendant’s assertion of fraud against the victim E (Article 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act), even if following the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant is deemed to not lend money if C wishes to use money for gambling, and thus, the victim E would not borrow money, and thus, he/she would have received remittance of KRW 4,750,00 from the victim E as her mother would require surgery funds. Therefore, this constitutes a case where the Defendant in collusion with C, by deceiving the victim E, or by deceiving the victim E for C.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. The gist of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, on July 19, 2010, called “victims” (hereinafter referred to as “victims” in this item) with respect to the fraud of the Victim C (hereinafter referred to as “victims”) and phone calls at an influence place, and “On July 19, 2010, 10 million won out of the start-up capital was used in mind by our mother, and 10 million won out of the start-up capital is used by the victim. If the Defendant lends money as security to D with a coos vehicle on which punishment is imposed, he said to the effect that he would complete the payment without the mold thereafter.

However, the defendant was to receive start-up funds from his mother.