사기등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendant's improper sentencing) stated that the complainant is forced to pay the money rapidly because of economic difficulties to close down the store operated by the defendant, and thus, the complainant is required to pay the money as soon as possible when the complainant demands a security, and the defendant committed the crime of this case. The defendant has a very weak mind for the victim, and the defendant has a life with an aesthetic mind, and the defendant paid 70,000 won interest to the victim for eight months during the judgment of the court below. In the future, the defendant is a plan to pay the damages, and the defendant is a plan to pay the damages, and the mother who is a basic living recipient of the basic life, was living while living in the construction site while he was on duty and was on duty at the construction site, and the defendant has been bound by the court of the court below as the case, and thus, it does not prevent the same mistake again.
In light of the fact that the court below's sentence (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, in light of the fact that there is no criminal conviction exceeding the fine of the defendant, etc.
2. The following facts are favorable to the Defendant: (a) the Defendant recognized that the instant crime was committed; (b) the Defendant, who paid interest to the victim to a certain extent; and (c) the Defendant paid one million won out of the judgment of the lower court.
However, in collusion with mother, the Defendant committed fraud by deceiving a certain amount of money under the name of the borrowed money by using a forged lease contract document in order to pretend that the obligation to return the falsified deposit is provided as security, and the nature of such crime is heavy and there is no way to commit the crime.
In addition, the victim did not reach an agreement with the victim and most of the victims did not recover the damage, and the victim and his/her agent E wanted to be severe punishment, while the defendant relatively old, but was punished twice by the crime of fraud in the document forgery investigation similar to this case in 2001.