beta
Text
Defendant
The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) although the Defendant received money from the victim F and H; (b) since he repaid the above victims more than the money received from the above victims, it cannot be deemed that there was a criminal intent of defraudation; and (c) there was no deception from the victim G. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that recognized the Defendant by deceiving the victim F, H, and G with the criminal intent of defraudation was erroneous in matters of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts; (b) even if the Defendant was found guilty of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower
B. In view of the fact that the amount of fraud by the prosecutor exceeds KRW 50 million, and that the defendant uses a forged lease contract or promissory note in Chapter 8, the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unfeasible and unfair.
2. Determination:
A. 1 The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts. The Defendant was in an urgent situation to pay the interest on bonds worth KRW 5 million in a month beginning with the payment of bonds since 2005, and the interest on bonds was at least KRW 10 million around January 2008, and KRW 20 million around July 2008, and KRW 10 million at KRW 60 million. However, the Defendant did not have any special income other than KRW 3 million in the husband’s name, and the Defendant did not have any property, such as real estate, etc., in the Defendant’s name, and eventually, there was no specific property, such as the Plaintiff’s real estate, etc., and the Defendant paid the principal and interest on existing bonds by means of a so-called “refluencing loan,” which was borrowed from the victims, and the Defendant also provided the victim and the Plaintiff with a promissory note or a promissory note upon the request of the victims for a loan from the victims.