beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.02 2020노100

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

Reasons

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (as to the part 1 through 4 of the annexed crime list Nos. 632 in the 2019 Highest 632 case), the Defendant was employed as an employee of entertainment centers at the time of borrowing the money from the victim E (hereinafter “each of the instant money”) from the victim E, and the Defendant paid all of the said money within the due date agreed with the said victim. In light of the above circumstances, the Defendant cannot be recognized with the intent to repay and the ability to obtain the money, and thus, the Defendant cannot be recognized with the intent to obtain the money, and thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant of all of the annexed crime list, including this part of the facts charged, although it was not a crime of fraud. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) In light of the fact that the sentence imposed by the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, taking into account the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim E in sentencing, the balance between the judgment that became final and conclusive twice, and the fact that the Defendant’s health status is not good, etc.

B. In full view of the attitude of the criminal act committed by the Defendant by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing), the damage caused by the crime, the frequency of the criminal act by fraud, the criminal records of punishment for the same crime committed by the Defendant, etc., the punishment sentenced by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. On December 24, 2014, the Defendant charged with this part of the charges against the victim E, who is a business employee, at the “Gcheon-gu Branch” located in the Nam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

In order to purchase internal and external vehicles, it is difficult to purchase the party room because there is a lack of money to pay taxes to entertainment centers.

The loan of money is to purchase the out-of-paid roadway immediately after the repayment.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”