beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) even before the instant case, the Defendant borrowed another person’s name and purchased a used vehicle, and attempted to sell it through I but failed to sell it; (b) the Defendant did not dispose of a used vehicle normally for a considerable period after collecting a used vehicle from I; and (c) the Defendant distributed a used vehicle with a used vehicle with a large amount of time after collecting the used vehicle from I; and (d) the Defendant was guilty of the Defendant’s defraudation, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the facts charged in the instant case on the contrary premise.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case (1) at the “D” beauty room of the victim C’s operation in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 2015, the Defendant stated that “the victim shall sell the relevant vehicle to another person within three months if he/she lends his/her name in purchasing a heavy vehicle to another person, and shall pay all the expenses incurred in the vehicle, and in return, he/she shall pay one million won per vehicle.”
However, even if the defendant borrowed the name necessary for borrowing vehicle purchase and purchase funds from the victim, he/she did not have an intention or ability to transfer the name to another person within three months.
In this respect, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim on September 8, 2015, obtained a loan of KRW 25 million from E Co., Ltd. in the name of the victim, and purchased FbenzS vehicles under the name of the victim, did not transfer the name of the vehicle and the obligation, and did not transfer the remaining principal and interest of the loan to the victim, and acquired financial profits equivalent to the same amount.
(2) On September 14, 2015, the Defendant, at the same place as above (1) and in the same manner as above (1), deceivings the victim and purchased a vehicle from G Co., Ltd. with a loan of KRW 29 million from G Co., Ltd. in the name of the victim, but purchased a vehicle to H Hafgland.