특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. It is true that Defendant 1 received money from the injured party as stated in the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below.
However, the defendant can make profits equivalent to interest by running a high interest rate loan business for employees of entertainment establishments.
There is no deception by the injured party, and only the injured party provided an account under the name of the defendant I (hereinafter referred to as the "the Account in this case") so that the injured party can use it as a borrowed account.
However, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the consistently stated contents from an investigative agency to the court below’s ruling, prosecutor 1) in light of the fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant may obtain profits equivalent to interest by running high interest loan business against employees of entertainment establishments.
It is recognized that the damaged person has taken money from the innocent part of the judgment of the court below by deceiving the damaged person.
Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too uncomfortable.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below in the part 1 through 37, 39 through 49 of the crime list of annexed crimes in the judgment of the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant deceivings the victim as if he could obtain profits equivalent to interest by running high interest loan business against the employees of entertainment establishments, and by deceiving the victim of money corresponding to this part.
Therefore, it is true.