beta
Text
The judgment below
Part of the guilty and part of the acquittal (the fraud of the borrowed money against the victim D) shall be respectively.
Reasons
The judgment of the court below is based on the facts charged by the victim (amount of damage) and the judgment of the court below.
D. guilty of fraud of 200,000,000 won by deceiving profits from the cancellation of mortgage 1.2
2. The crime of embezzlement of 55,000,000 won by fraud of the borrowed money (the charge part: 25 million won) is guilty of fraud of 150,000,000 won by fraud of the E purchase price.
(1) A person who is not guilty of 49,000,000 won by fraud of the borrowed money 2.B.
(2) 300,000,000 Won 2.B.
(3) Borrowing money 20,000,000 won 2.B.
(4) Borrowing money 200,000,000 won 2.0
The sum of innocence in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes of KRW 4,924,000,000 (Partial Crimes) shall be 225,000,000 (Partial Crimes)
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) As to Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the guilty part of the judgment of the court below), Defendant 1 used KRW 200,000,000 (the maximum debt amount of collateral mortgage), which is property gains obtained from the victim’s disposal act, as the purpose of use, for all the construction permit costs for F land according to its use, and was actually authorized to construct.
In the process, the defendant extended a temporary loan to pay part of the above amount individually, but from the perspective of the victim, it did not need to pay all the authorization expenses at that time, so even if the defendant temporarily uses it for other purposes, it would not be problematic and allowed to do so.
Therefore, the defendant committed deception.
It is difficult to see that there was a criminal intent to obtain fraud or to commit fraud against the defendant.
② The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine against the Defendant, under the judgment that the victim would not have consented to the termination of the right to collateral security of the victim and the Defendant would temporarily use part of the amount borrowed, 355,973,980 won, for personal debt.