beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, from January 22, 2011 to January 2011.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since the Defendant paid more than the principal after borrowing money from the victim C, the Defendant did not have committed a deception and did not have any intention to acquire the money.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. From January 22, 2011 to January 30, 2011, the lower court duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as evidence and the statement of the witness C at the trial. In other words, the following circumstances are acknowledged: ① the Defendant, as a 11 ton owner of the cargo at the time of the instant loan, was at the 11st ton of the cargo at the time of the instant loan, and the Defendant was deemed to have earned a net income of KRW 2.6 million at the time of the instant loan, and there was no other obligation than the installment, ② the Defendant used the money borrowed from the victim who entered the regular casino from the regular casino for the purpose of gambling; ③ the victim was aware of the purpose of the loan; ③ from around October 11, 2010, the Defendant formed trust with the victim by paying back the money normally from the victim to the transfer of the instant loan from the victim; ④ The Defendant appears to have lent the money to the Defendant; ④ The Defendant appears to have borrowed the money from the Defendant to the extent that it could not have been able from the Plaintiff.
It seems that there is no circumstance to deem that there was an intention to obtain fraud or to obtain fraud, and 6) there is no circumstance that the defendant neglected his ability to repay the instant money at the time of borrowing the said money, or notified false facts, and 7) The victim is accused of the defendant at the police station, 'the point of deception is that the defendant does not own two cargo vehicles, but sells one of them.