beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
Of the facts charged in this case, the fraud on September 14, 2007 is acquitted.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant (as to the conviction in the judgment of the court below) borrowed 30 million won from the complainant (D) on September 14, 2007 (as to the crime Nos. 1 of the annexed crime), is merely money borrowed as a living expense, and it does not constitute deception by deceiving the complainant as stated in this part of the facts charged.
고소인의 주장과 같이 피고인이 ㈜Q 의 대표를 사칭하거나 아파트 신축사업을 하 자며 고소인을 꼬드긴 사실도 없다.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the facts (as to the portion of the judgment below’s acquittal), even after the construction of new apartment by EP loan was not carried out, the complainant continued to deceiving the complainant to the effect that the Defendant is in need of expenses for the implementation of another region, and the complainant wired money as set forth in [Attachment 2-7] Nos. 2 through 7 of the List of Offenses.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted each part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) that is unfair in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. On September 14, 2007, the summary of this part of the facts charged (the guilty part of the judgment of the court below) is that the defendant in the foreign exchange bank located in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Nowon-gu around September 14, 2007, even if he received the money from the victim D, the defendant thought that he would use it for his personal purpose, and did not intend to use it as a expense for promoting the new apartment construction project through the EP loan, but the victim's false statement that "the victim would have to obtain a PF loan from the chairman of E, a home country, and would have to bear expenses to promote the new apartment construction project," and that "the victim would have paid money from the victim's wife on September 14, 2007."