beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The victim misunderstanding of facts about the victim C was already aware that the victim, as joint business operators, was registered as the inside director of the corporation D (hereinafter “D”) and was well aware of the internal circumstances, and was impossible to grant a PF loan.
The defendant did not deceiving the victim, and there is no relation between the loan and the deception.
The fact that small assets on the financial statements are more than active assets does not have the ability to repay debts.
It shall not be readily concluded.
In order to prevent a return, the circumstances after the loan of this case are unreasonable. The contents of the trust agreement requested the payment of the loan principle and there was a provision that can be paid first prior to the completion of the sales business, and the sales revenue was determined prior to the completion of the sales business.
At the time of receiving money from the injured party, there was the intention to repay and the ability to repay.
B) Even if the charge of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is found guilty, the loan portion of KRW 3770 million on April 14, 201 and KRW 150 million on August 29, 2011 are not a single crime but a separate crime and a substantive concurrent crime.
2) The part M with respect to the victim L did not request the victim to make the same remarks as the facts charged.
There is no statement that the Defendant made directly to the victim such remarks as the facts charged.
The victims reported the overall business of D and borrowed money from the damaged party for the business fund.
The defendant did not deceiving the victim.
The defendant has been continuously repaid money from M to M.
However, it is too difficult to make payment after the fact. The defendant had the intention to make payment and the ability to make payment.
3) Five copies of the agreement on the rights of the union members that the Defendant transferred to the victim as security were sufficient to value as security.
The victim did not specify the purpose of the lease.