beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.12.19 2014노1844

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of Nos. 1 and 2 of the list of crimes in the judgment of the court below in the misconception of facts, the victim was proposed to first lend the money as a simple loan rather than an investment deposit. In the case of the above crime Nos. 3 and 4 of the list of crimes, the victim borrowed the money on the condition of equal repayment of the principal and interest for four years under the pretext of lease deposit or certification fee for UL, and used it for its actual purpose. In the case of the above crime No. 5 of the list of crimes, the victim

The fact that the defendant was unable to continue to repay is because E has embezzled the company's funds, so the business could not proceed properly.

As such, although the Defendant did not deception the victim by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and finding the Defendant guilty of the remaining charges of this case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The victim's statement was made as evidence consistent with the deception of the facts charged in this case. The victim's statement is consistent from the investigative agency to the court below. The defendant recognized that the defendant was the money invested in the defendant's punishment, as alleged by the victim, (related to 94 pages, 230 pages, 1, 230 pages, and 1, 2). While the defendant stated that he used the money borrowed from the victim for the purpose of operating expenses of the company, the lease deposit received from the victim at the time of the prosecutor's statement at the time of the prosecution, and the authentication expenses, the defendant reversed the statement that he used for the above purpose after the prosecution (related to 3, 4 related to the list of crimes), the defendant argued that he decided to pay principal and interest in installments in 48-month installments, but on December 13, 2012, he/she would repay the amount borrowed to the victim until June 20, 2013.