전자금융거래법위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);
A. The Defendant, on the condition that he borrowed 300,000 won from a person who was under his name, did not intend to lend 2 physical cards to the person who was under his name, and not to give 1.6 million won from the person who was under his name.
There is no statement made by the Defendant to the effect that “the Defendant had given and received KRW 16 million” during the police interrogation procedure.
B. The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the following facts and circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it can be recognized that the defendant was entitled to KRW 1.6 million per head of Tong and lent two physical cards, and there is an error of law in the judgment of the court below.
subsection (b) of this section.
1) The Defendant stated in the police that “The Defendant only borrowed the e-mail card to receive KRW 1.6 million per head of the Tong and lent the e-mail card”, and that “The Defendant first received the cell phone text message to receive KRW 1.6 million per head of the Tong. At the time, the Defendant borrowed the e-mail card on the condition that 300,000 won of the hospital expenses need to be lent only to the extent of 3 million per head of the Tong, due to good body size at the time.”
2) In relation to this, the Defendant alleged that there was no statement from the police that “the Defendant had given and received KRW 16 million”, but according to the evidence list, which forms part of the trial protocol of this case, the Defendant stated that the Defendant consented to the Defendant to give and receive the above police interrogation protocol as evidence on the first trial date of the lower court. According to the first trial protocol of the lower court, the Defendant and the defense counsel stated that the Defendant and the defense counsel stated that they did not have any different opinion on the result of the examination of evidence, and that the declaration of intention on the above evidence was revoked or withdrawn before the examination of evidence is completed.
We can look at the records in the records.