beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.08.25 2015노3097

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the statements, etc. of the victim C and E, although the court below acquitted the victim of the fraud on February 28, 2012 against the victim, although it can be recognized that E borrowed five million won from the defendant and did not borrow the above money from the damaged party, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment, two years of probation, two years of probation, observation of protection, and 80 hours of community service order) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim did not have any personal-friendly relationship while working in the same unit as E but did not have any personal-friendly relationship; (ii) the victim was aware that he borrowed money to E; (iii) the victim was aware that he would use the money wired to E in the name of E; and (iv) the witness E also requested the defendant to mediate the money deposited to E by requiring five million won; and (v) the defendant was sent five million won after obtaining a different test.

The defendant sent money to the injured party after receiving such money.

was known that it was corresponded.

When the defendant borrows money from the defendant, he/she will pay interest on the loan of money from the person who wants to do so.

was made.

In light of the fact that the victim stated to the purport that it was “,” the Defendant’s economic situation was not good at the time of remitting KRW 5 million to the account under the name of E on February 28, 2012.

Even if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, he/she acquired the money from the victim by deceiving the victim with the intention to defraud the victim.

It is insufficient to recognize it.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged is sufficiently proven.

It is difficult to see

this paper.