beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant: The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (five years of imprisonment with prison labor for three years, five years of probation, probation, social service) is too unreasonable.
The grounds of appeal submitted by the defendant by his defense counsel after the deadline for submitting the grounds of appeal are examined only to the extent of supplement in case of legitimate grounds of appeal.
B. A prosecutor: In a mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, 1) mistake of facts, or misunderstanding of legal principles, the grounds for the Defendant’s speech to the victim to borrow money is only a means of lending money, and thus, a comprehensive crime of fraud is established regardless of the reasons for lending money in absence of intent to repay or ability to repay. The Defendant was merely about KRW 30 million annual income, and the Defendant borrowed approximately KRW 70 million from the victim for about one year and six months, and thus did not have an intention to repay or ability to repay. Therefore, the lower court’s failure to prove that there was insufficient evidence as to the fact that there was lack of intent to repay or ability to repay the total sum of KRW 15 million as stated in No. 56-61 of the facts charged in the instant case, and thus, found the Defendant guilty of the reasoning to be erroneous or misunderstanding of legal principles.2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant as above is too unreasonable.
2. The lower court’s judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine stated in detail the judgment on this part of the judgment, a thorough examination of the judgment of the lower court compared with the evidential materials, and additional circumstances acknowledged by the record, the sole evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that fraud is established due to the Defendant’s lack of intent or ability to repay the sum of KRW 56-61 as stated in the facts charged in the instant case at the time of borrowing KRW 15 million, and there is no
Ultimately, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and it is alleged by the prosecutor.