Escopics

Defendant

Appellant. An appellant

Defendant

Prosecutor

United Kingdom of Great Britain

Defense Counsel

Attorney Lee In-bok

Judgment of the lower court

Changwon District Court Decision 2006 High Court Decision 285 decided May 10, 2006

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The gist of the grounds for appeal by defense counsel is as follows: (a) as the defendant had the intent and ability to repay the loan from the victim at the time of receiving the loan, the defendant recognized the criminal facts in the judgment and sentenced the defendant to five months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution, even though there was no intention to obtain the loan from the victim; and (b) there was a mistake as to the facts affecting the judgment, and there was a reason to recognize that the amount of punishment is unreasonable; and (c) thus, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant notified the victim of the purchase amount of forest differently from the actual amount and received the funds to purchase forest equivalent to the purchase amount from the victim. Thus, regardless of whether the defendant had the intent and ability to repay the loan, the defendant, regardless of whether he had the intent and ability to do so, committed an offense described in the criminal facts in the judgment below by omitting the victim's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, the motive, means and consequence of each of the crimes in this case, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the judgment below cannot be recognized.