Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

A. The victim of the misunderstanding of facts is not a lending of money to the defendants, but an investment is made by the defendants, and the defendants do not borrow money by deceiving the victims without the ability and intent to repay.

In addition, the Defendants will use the project cost for other construction sites in addition to J.

Since it was notified to the victim, there was no deception of the victim about the use of the money.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for eight months, and Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendants could obtain money by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged. Therefore, the Defendants’ above assertion is without merit.

① The victim consistently borrowed from the investigative agency to the court of the court below the words “J funds are needed”.

J At the construction site, it was confirmed that the work is in progress and lent, and it was not possible to hear that funds are needed at another construction site.

The first location of the court was good to make the sale as soon as possible.

From March to August, the construction was commenced and the principal was repaid by the end of August.

“The statement was made to the effect that “........”

② In the court of original instance, M introduced the Defendants to the victim, the part in which the victim invested by receiving a personal credit loan, and the principal was set on a separate date.

“The Defendants made a statement to the effect that they promised to repay the money received from the injured party.”

I would like to say.

B. The Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, and post-crimes, which led to the instant crime, have reached an agreement with the victim when the sentencing was unfair. In addition, the instant project was not unreasonable, and the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime.