beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) did not borrow money from the victim C for the purpose of using it for the child hospital expenses, and only borrowed money from the victim with gambling funds, and the victim borrowed money with the knowledge that it was used for gambling, so the defendant did not induce the victim.
2. Determination
A. Around December 2010 to January 201, 2011, the summary of the facts charged states that “Absia was hospitalized in a hospital with a child’s urine,” and that “Absia was unable to discharge the victim C from the hospital due to lack of money.” When lending money, the Defendant falsely stated that “Absia was hospitalized in a hospital with a child’s urine,” and “absia was discharged from the hospital with a child’s urine.”
However, even if the victim borrowed money, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to use the money at the hospital expense or to repay it.
The Defendant, as such, was issued seven million won from the victim by deceiving the victim and deceiving him.
B. The victim, at the police and the court of original instance, stated that “the defendant borrowed money for the purpose of using it for the children’s hospital expenses” in the police and the court of original instance. However, D, at the court of original instance, where the victim took part in borrowing money from the defendant, stated that “the victim was able to gambling, and the defendant was punished.” The victim stated to the effect that “the victim borrowed money from the defendant for gambling at the expense of five million won in cash on January 22, 201.” ② at the court of original instance, D only stated to the effect that “the victim was a person who prepared and signed by the victim” on May 4, 201, which was submitted to the investigative agency and the court of original instance, around May 2, 2014 (Evidence No. 70 of the evidence record), and around May 2, 2014, D merely stated to the purport that “the victim was a person who was disadvantageous to the defendant.”