beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.10.27 2020노616

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground of the victim's statement, etc., although the defendant borrowed 50 million won from the victim, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground of the fact that he did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case and did not have the intent

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the judgment of the court below is justifiable, since the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts charged in this case, and defrauds the victim of KRW 50 million, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1) The Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the victim without specifying the purpose of use from the victim, without deceiving the victim as described in the facts charged in the instant case, and argued that the victim did not engage in the clothing business only after the loan. However, the victim made a relatively specific and consistent statement about the Defendant’s deception, and the Defendant made a reference to the business to the effect that “the Defendant would make efforts to pay the victim benefits immediately after borrowing the said money,” including the content of the examination of the Defendant’s witness in the trial (such as the summary No. 2-7, No. 3-4, 37-38, 173-176, 313-315, etc.). The victim borrowed KRW 50 million from the victim, stating that the Defendant would engage in the parallel import business of clothing, but did not proceed with the use of the debt.”