사기
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Defendants jointly acquire money of KRW 25,00,000 from the applicant for compensation.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing)
A. In fact, the Defendants made an endeavor to purchase the F Factory Site E located in the Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, but the project was suspended because they failed to purchase the land due to the failure to receive the investment money, and it was not by deceiving the victim without the intention to conduct the project, but the lower court convicted the Defendants of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The court below rejected the above assertion by the defendants as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the court below's assertion as to the same ground for appeal of this case. The court below's determination is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the mistake of facts or the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the finding of facts or the misapprehension of legal principles.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court’s failure to do so. In full view of the factors revealed in the instant argument, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive to exceed the reasonable scope of discretion.