beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although it is true that the defendant misunderstanding of the fact borrowed a total of KRW 130 million from the damaged party, it shall not be constituted a crime of fraud because it did not have the intent to commit fraud, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the crime of fraud by recognizing the criminal intent of fraud.
B. The punishment of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court on the assertion of factual mistake: (i) the Defendant was liable for an amount equivalent to KRW 600 million due to the management depression of the maintenance industry that had been operating at the time of borrowing money from the damaged party; (ii) the Defendant continued to borrow money from the damaged party even though the Defendant failed to repay the existing debt borrowed from the damaged party; and (iii) the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the damaged party on January 13, 2015 and lent the said money to the injured party, the Defendant would have paid the said money along with the money borrowed by the Defendant by selling the maintenance industry company that had been operated.
Although the money sold by the maintenance industry sold to the Defendant was consumed for other purposes by giving the Defendant’s wife, etc., and the contact with the victim was cut down and locked, the Defendant repaid approximately KRW 68 million out of the money borrowed from the victim on several occasions from October 25, 2013 to April 10, 2015, and the Defendant repaid part of the money borrowed from the victim as above, and the victim continued to lend the money to the Defendant. However, according to the victim’s statement, I’s statement, I’s statement by the victim, and account books submitted by the victim, the above money was not repaid for the money acquired, but for the Defendant’s separate loan obligation or credit.