beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
Summary of Reasons for appeal
A. Fact-misunderstanding ① A total of KRW 3,50,000,000,000,000 in the No. 1,8,222, and23 of the List of Crimes in the annexed Table 1 of this case is the details that the perpetrator sent guidance to E and I. The Defendant did not borrow money from the complainant. ② The Defendant borrowed KRW 12,80,000,000,000 from the complainant, excluding the above KRW 35,050,000 from the complainant. However, the Defendant paid KRW 30,99,00 to the complainant through the ancillary account, and paid KRW 8,50,00,000 through F. Thus, the Defendant could sufficiently be recognized that the Defendant had the intent or ability to repay it at the time of borrowing KRW 12,28,000 from the complainant, but the lower court erred in the misapprehension of facts charged.
B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
Judgment
A. On October 31, 201, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case concluded that, “Around October 31, 2011, the Defendant, at the victim D’s house located in Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, “I believe that I would have to borrow and take responsibility within one month, and would have to do so. I believe I would have to do so.” The Defendant made a false statement that “I would have to use it rapidly to the victim at the same place as on March 15, 2012, if I would have borrowed KRW 20 million, I would have to use it only one month and make a full payment with three additional interest.”
However, the Defendant, at the time, had been obliged to provide the Plaintiff with the time of providing KRW 10 million, and there was no request to lend KRW 10,000 from E. The Defendant received direct lending from the victim to F that did not want to lend the money any longer, and even if there was no special property or income at the time, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money at that time even if he borrowed money from the victim due to no special property or income.
The Defendant is the victim.