변호사법위반등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal: Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing;
A. Although the statement by the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles is inconsistent with the assertion that it is a loan in a civil procedure, and is contrary to objective facts, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the court below made a conviction against the defendant in reliance on the victim's statement, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles.
B. Even if the sentencing was found guilty against the Defendant, the lower court’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment, 1 year of suspended execution, and additional collection) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, i.e., mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.
In other words, ① the statements of the victim are relatively consistent in detail and relatively consistent.
② In civil litigation, the principal of the victim’s lawsuit shall hear all explanations from the injured party and shall be deemed the cause of the claim for the loan without distinction, and the principal shall also state the purport similar to the facts charged in this case.
③ The content of the text message that the victim received from the Defendant corresponds to the facts charged in this case.
④ When a victimized person lends money considering the Defendant as alleged by the Defendant, it was difficult for the victimized person at the time to take economic circumstances due to bad credit standing, and there was no agreement on interest and due date and no loan certificate was prepared.
2) In light of the following circumstances, such as the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is no misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the Defendant.
① Although the statement of the victim is somewhat unclear, the transaction between the defendant and the victim is so falling short, and the defendant, who is a director of the Secretariat of the National Assembly, continues to express his/her ability during the said money transaction.