사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) was operating the instant D convenience points at the time of the instant loan (However, the name of the franchise store was only K in the name of the member store agreement), indicating that the Defendant was a basic livelihood recipient, and the victim company considered the credit rating of the Defendant in implementing the instant loan, and did not constitute an important standard to determine whether the Defendant is a business owner of D convenience store.
Ultimately, in relation to the instant loan, the Defendant’s deception cannot be recognized, and even if the deception is recognized, the causal relationship between the said deception and the disposal of the victim company cannot be recognized.
Although there are some circumstances, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts in the judgment of the court below which pronounced guilty of the facts charged
2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles
A. According to the records, K entered into a D convenience store agreement with H on August 8, 2008 with respect to D convenience store (hereinafter “instant convenience store”), K is the Defendant’s wife, and the Defendant managed the instant convenience store around that time.
B. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) the convenience store of this case was transferred from K on July 8, 2009, and operated it. At the time of the loan of this case, the defendant did not run the above convenience store; (ii) the defendant stated that there was no certain occupation at the time of the loan of this case; (iii) the defendant presented the name that he was indicated as the management owner of the convenience store of this case in the process of the loan of this case; and (iv) the defendant stated the name that he was indicated as the management owner of the convenience store of this case in the process of the loan of this case.