beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal, including the victim D’s statement and the statement of the cash custody certificate in its name, etc., the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant was found to have acquired money from the victim as stated in the facts charged in
2. On November 201, 2013, the Defendant of the instant facts charged stated that “In order to conduct mining business, operating expenses and down payment are required” to the victim D in the mutual infinite coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Samsungdong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the Defendant acquired the mine and received the loan from the financial institution until December 5, 2013.”
However, the defendant did not have any property, there is no particular income, and there is no fact that the mine is taken over or the mine is operated, and because it is not a situation in which a financial institution can take a loan from a financial institution, there was no intention and ability to pay money to the victim.
Nevertheless, on November 5, 2013, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim as above; (b) transferred KRW 30 million to a bank account in the name of foreign exchange bank under the name of the Defendant, which is operated by the Defendant, as a mining business fund; and (c) was transferred to the same account on November 6, 2013 as a mining contract deposit amounting to KRW 160 million.
In this respect, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits by deceiving the victim.
3. On the judgment of the court below, it is hard to believe D’s statement as it is in light of the facts found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, and regarding the part of KRW 30 million among the facts charged in this case, D did not transfer KRW 30 million to the defendant because it falls under the Defendant’s deception, such as the facts charged in this case, rather than remitting KRW 30 million to the defendant. D is well aware of the circumstance that the defendant is trying to conduct mining business by using F’s loan.