특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles revealed the Defendant’s photograph and other data, and explained that “The storage in which non-funds, foreign currencies, gold ings, etc. are in custody, has the authority to perform the work of raising underground funds with the authority delegated by the State agency.” On December 2, 2015, the first patrolman stated that “The above warehouse has reached the final stage of raising underground funds between the owner of the warehouse who holds a certain right with respect to the above warehouse and the owner of the warehouse,” and believed that “1 billion won is in need of the amount equivalent to the wages to be paid to the security guards to the warehouse,” and that the Defendant believed this without any doubt.
As such, the defendant only transferred the horses from M to the victim in the situation of deception from M, and the defendant did not have any intention to defraud the money by deceiving the victim under the pretext of the cost of fostering underground funds.
Nevertheless, the court below has the intention to commit fraud by the defendant.
Recognizing the facts charged in this case, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.
B. The sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion to the same effect as above in the lower court’s judgment, the lower court’s assertion that: (a) the Defendant’s assertion that “it is possible to raise a large amount of funds in the course of carrying out the so-called “business of fostering underground funds” or “business related to specific goods,” which is held by the Defendant against the victim, actually exist; and (b) through this, there is no objective data supporting such assertion; and (c) it is nothing more than a law that has been used for a long time (Evidence 340 to 340 to 40 of the evidence record).