beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the money borrowed by the Defendant from the injured party (hereinafter “the borrowed money of this case”) used most of the borrowed money of this case for personal purposes, such as living expenses, even though its purpose was specified as activity expenses for the recruitment of union members, and the Defendant was determined as the contractor for the project of the regional housing association (hereinafter “project of this case”), and the Defendant was deceiving the injured party as if 480 preliminary members were recruited, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case even if it could be recognized as fraud. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal
A. The summary of the facts charged is the person who served as the head of the project team for promoting the instant project from around December 4, 2014 (hereinafter “instant project team”).
On November 23, 2016, the Defendant refers to that the Defendant is the F Chairperson to the victim E at the insular coffee shop in Yangsan-si, Yangsan-si. “If the instant project is carried out, G members may be mobilized, so there is no problem in the selection of a preliminary member, and if the land is purchased, the selection of a construction project will also proceed without a H problem.
It is expected that funds for the operation of the partnership will run and share the business.
“.....”
However, the Defendant did not have a special profit source at the time and did not receive money from the injured party, but was scheduled to use personal debt repayment, etc., which is not funds for cooperative operation, so the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to use funds for cooperative operation even if he received money from the injured party, and even if he did not have a considerable amount of funds for the purchase price of land at the time, the Defendant did not have any self-sufficiency but did not guarantee that the selection of the contractor or the selection of the reserve union members was carried out without any interruption. Therefore