사기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Summary of Reasons for appeal
A. 1) In relation to the fraud of the victim H, the Defendant merely borrowed money under the name of the PC room operating expenses and construction cost from time to time with the victim while making money transactions with the victim, and did not borrow money by deceiving that the money is needed as soon as possible.
The defendant has borrowed money from the damaged party in most immediately, and there was no intention to acquire the borrowed money of this case.
2) In relation to the fraud of the victim N, the Defendant was in the same business relationship with G to jointly operate the PC room, and the victim was well aware of this.
Since most of the borrowed money from the damaged person was actually used as the PC operation fund, the defendant deceivingd the victim.
It is not possible to do so, and the intention of defraudation is not recognized.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The part of the crime of fraud against the victim H was also identical in the court below. The court below held that the defendant did not have any circumstance that the defendant should promptly engage in the solicitation business with G or pay the machinery price to the head office as soon as possible in relation thereto in the judgment on the argument of the defendant and his/her defense counsel. Nevertheless, it can be recognized that the defendant extended money to the head office if the defendant was the victim by taking care of false circumstances to borrow the above money, the victim was the victim, and the defendant lent money to the head office, and if the defendant did not wish to pay the money immediately after he/she paid the money to the head office, he/she would not lend the above money.
On the other hand, this part of the crime was found guilty.
2) Examining the circumstances in the lower court’s reasoning duly admitted and investigated by the evidence, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.