beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.01.19 2016노1896

사기등

Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant received KRW 200 million from the injured party on August 11, 2011, but it is better that the injured party is guaranteed the old age rather than paying the said amount or paying taxes.

The judgment of the court below is just a contribution to D operated by the defendant, and the defendant does not have acquired the above KRW 200 million by deceiving the victim by stating that "the victim will not pay money to the bond company," and the victim did not receive the financial support from the defendant and operated the F cafeteria, and thus the victim did not reach the profits of the cafeteria, and the defendant exceeded the right to operate the cafeteria, and the defendant has the right to the cafeteria's lease deposit or the right to the cafeteria's premium. Thus, even if the defendant used the above lease deposit or the cafeteria's deposit paid to the cafeteria individually, the crime of embezzlement is not established even if the defendant used the above lease deposit or the cafeteria's cafeteria's 53 million won in total. However, the judgment below

2) The lower court’s sentence (one year and four months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the fact-misunderstanding (as to the acquittal portion in the judgment below), the fact that it is impossible for the injured party to take the initiative in the court that he was in an internal relationship with the Defendant, and the victim’s statement is bound to fall under the credibility of the victim’s statement, so the victim’s credibility should not be entirely rejected, and the defendant’s statement does not have credibility, etc., the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, although the defendant acquired property benefits equivalent to the apartment price in this case as stated in each of the facts charged, and recognized the fact that he forged the victim’s private document under the name of the victim and forged

2) Illegal Defendant for sentencing.