beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he had by deceiving the victim and acquired money from the victim. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts
2. Determination
A. On June 8, 2009, the Defendant borrowed the amount of KRW 116 million to himself before, and had not yet been repaid, at a non-permanent place on June 8, 2009, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, and then again borrowed the amount of KRW 16 million to the victim C who had not been reimbursed.
In October of this year, it stated to the effect that it would be possible to lend money to the effect that the amount would be immediately repaid if the amount of money would be KRW 50,000,000,000 of an installment savings is to be paid in installments.
However, at the time of the Defendant’s family members, the Defendant had owned the same land in Pyeongtaek-gun D in the name of the Defendant’s family members. However, the Defendant did not pay the existing debt to the Korea Rural Community Corporation, and did not arbitrarily dispose of the said land due to the application of the Korea Rural Community Corporation. In light of the foregoing circumstances, the existence of senior creditors such as Korea Rural Community Corporation, agricultural cooperatives, etc., and the above creditors’ application for auction and progress, etc., the actual disposal price of the said owned land is practically impossible. In addition, even if the Defendant and his family members borrowed the above money from the injured party due to the absence of any particular revenue, there was no intent or ability to repay it by the due date to the promise of the victim.
The Defendant does not have the intent or ability to pay the borrowed money with the proceeds of the sale, as the Defendant’s family land was immediately sold to the victim or the victim did so by the due date.