beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-finding (the fraud against C) The defendant was received money from C upon F's request and transferred it to F by withdrawing money from C, and there was no deception by deceiving C.
However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The judgment of the court below also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part of this part. The court below made a fair certificate to the effect that the judgment was made by the defendant, “The summary of evidence [2015 order 5096]” under the following circumstances, ① the victim has consistently lent money to the investigation agency and the court below, ② the defendant borrowed 11 million won from the injured party from the injured party in the office of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of the law branch of March 5, 2015, and the defendant actually used the money in this case as alleged by the defendant.” The defendant prepared a fair certificate to the effect that “The interest rate was 20% per annum, and this change was made until December 31, 2015,” and the attorney in charge of notarial acts responded to the purport that the defendant would have been asked as to whether he borrowed money from the injured party in the process.
Even if this appears to be a party related to money transaction between the defendant and F, and the defendant did not borrow money from the victim.
It appears that there is no basis to view the above process deed. (4) The defendant changed to the purport that, at the time of the preparation of the process deed, the defendant only prepared a process deed according to F's instructions, although the defendant did not have first seen the victim at the attorney's office and had not borrowed money from the victim. However, the defendant is the police.