beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.07.09 2014노242

사기

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact or misapprehension of the legal principle that the Defendant received money as stated in the facts charged from the victims or did not intend to acquire it by deception, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles concerning the intent to acquire by deception. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine is identical to the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the above assertion on the grounds of various circumstances as indicated in the “judgment on the Defendant’s assertion” item.

In addition to the circumstances cited by the lower court, the following circumstances acknowledged by the record were acknowledged as follows, namely, the Defendant himself/herself did not have any profits due to business difficulties from May 201 to May 201, and from around November 2012, the Defendant recognized that he/she did not purchase a heavy vehicle with an invested money and paid back a debt (Article 47-48 of the Evidence No. 47-48 of the Record). Furthermore, the Defendant stated that he/she was able to pay the principal of the investment or profit to the victims since he/she actually transferred the money to the victims at the time when he/she received the money from the victims. The Defendant stated that he/she was used to pay the principal of the investment or pay the interest to other investors (Article 4-1 of the Evidence No. 82-89 of the Record No. 41 of the Evidence Record). Since the Defendant did not pay the principal to the victims in addition to the amount for agreement even after a considerable period of time has elapsed, he/she could not be recognized as having been aware of the intent and intent of the victims.