사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The defendant, who misleads the defendant as to the facts, (1) borrowed expenses necessary for the registration of inheritance and the cancellation of seizure without the intention or ability to repay, and makes a false statement to the victim, he/she shall not receive a total of KRW 13,547,00 from the account in the name of D as shown in No. 1 attached Table 1 of the lower judgment.
② The Defendant borrowed necessary expenses, etc. for the registration of inheritance and the cancellation of seizure without any intention or ability to repay, and makes a false statement to the victim, and instead, he/she did not acquire by deception the remainder 28.4 million won remaining after subtracting the amount of KRW 2.7 million, which was remitted to J, out of the amount of KRW 18.4 million listed in the table No. 4 of the crime committed at issue, 15.7 million and the amount of KRW 38.35 million listed in the table No. 5 of the above general sum list, which was remitted to K.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. On January 8, 2018, the lower court determined that the Defendant was unable to serve a duplicate, etc. of the indictment on the grounds that the Defendant’s whereabouts are unknown, and determined that the service of the Defendant was made by means of public disclosure, and that the Defendant was conducted on February 9, 2018 pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and that the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment on March 16, 2018
According to the above facts, there is no reason to assume that the defendant was unable to attend the trial and there is a reason to request a retrial.
Recognized.
Accordingly, this court's revocation of the decision to serve public notice and again served a copy of the indictment, etc., and then newly progress all the trial proceedings including the examination of evidence, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.
However, there are reasons for reversal of authority above, but the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
3. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court as to the assertion of mistake of facts.