사기
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. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of the facts and the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (guilty part) did not borrow money from the damaged person.
2) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) In fact, the Defendant, as well as the written reply, submitted to the competent court a certificate of confirmation prepared by F, to the effect that the victim was not a loan to the Defendant in Daejeon District Court Hongsung Branch 2013 Gao 6869, the Defendant was not a loan to the Defendant. Therefore, the crime of fraud is established.
2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unfortunate and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the Defendant and the defense counsel argued at the court below that this part of the appeal was the same as the grounds for appeal, and the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that: (a) although the Defendant acknowledged the fact that he received the money recorded in the facts charged to his father’s account; (b) he did not make a consistent statement on the reason that he received the money; (c) he did not make a statement on the reason that he received the money; and (d) he did not make a statement on the reason that he borrowed the money from his husband; (d) the victim made a consistent and concrete statement from the investigative agency about the fact that the borrowed money was consistent with the victim’s statement; (d) the Defendant’s statement also corresponds to the victim’s statement; and (e) the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the damaged person as the relocation cost of the facility; and (e) the separate KRW 10 million which can be seen as the relocation cost of the facility; and (e) the Defendant’s money deposited into the above D account.
Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below closely, the above judgment of the court below is just.