사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) Fraud: The Defendant did not have any intention to deception, had a self-performance and intent to repay, and there was no relationship between the Defendant’s deception and the victim’s lending.
(2) The fact that the original document of the process of monetary consumption and lending contract of this case is false, and the process deed of this case was prepared to secure KRW 51 million against Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. of G. for the purpose of securing the debt amounting to KRW 51 million, and the defendant was prepared to repay upon the failure to repay the debt amount under the above process deed. Thus, the claim under the above cash consumption and lending contract cannot be deemed as false claim. Thus, the defendant prepared the above process deed and had the defendant keep it.
Even if the original copy of a process deed does not constitute a crime of non-performance of the original copy of the process deed and a crime of accompanying.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant asserted that there was a misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the fraud, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion by its reasoning.
Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, which found the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the false entry of the original copy of the process deed and the exercise thereof.
(1) Although the Defendant and B conspired to lease an apartment owned by the Defendant and paid the rent deposit, they did not know the fact that they leased the apartment under the name of the lessee from G in B, with respect to the apartment owned by the Defendant, they prepared a false real estate lease contract, and used it in the name of G from a financial institution