사기등
The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.
The punishment of the accused shall be determined by two years of imprisonment.
except that this judgment.
1. misunderstanding of the gist of the grounds for appeal (in relation to fraud against the victim C, the defendant entered into a lease agreement with the tenant only in the name of the tenant while leasing a G restaurant at his own expense in around 2007, and later, the tenant's name was changed to J, which is the mother, and thus, it is thought that he has the right to dispose of the above restaurant. As such, the victim C did not have the criminal intent to acquire by fraud at the time of transferring the business of the G restaurant to the victim C), and unfair sentencing.2. The decision of this court on February 2.
A. In regard to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant first known that from 2007, the J, the mother of the Defendant, was operating the said restaurant in substance while operating the said restaurant, approximately KRW 50,000,00,000,000,000 for the facility construction cost of the said restaurant and KRW 1,73,000 due to the increase in lease deposit (Evidence No. 167,168,233). The Defendant did not notify the victim C of the aforementioned circumstances only when he was operating the restaurant in fact (Evidence No. 141 of Evidence No. 141), she was operating the restaurant (Evidence No. 141 of Evidence Record No. 5, 70 pages, 143 of Evidence No. 2, and 143 of Record).
In addition, before the Defendant entered into a transfer contract with the victim C, I and J have made clear objection to the transfer of the business (Evidence No. 143, 171, 247). Since the proceeds of the instant restaurant are used as the living expenses of the I and their children residing in the U.S. (Evidence No. 92, 171 pages), there is little possibility that the Defendant would obtain the consent of J or I as to the transfer of the said restaurant.
In full view of these circumstances, even if the Defendant assumed that all or part of the lease deposit and premium were to be borne by the Defendant at the time of leasing the said restaurant, the consent of J or I, which has considerable shares in the business of the said restaurant, is obtained.