beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;
A. Error 1) Fraud 1) The Defendant did not receive money under the pretext of preventing the Defendant from attending as a witness in the criminal trial by the husband of the victim under detention, but only received money in return for the request for personal protection from the victim. 2) The Defendant was aware that the Defendant was driving the bank, which includes the documents in the between the Defendant and the bitle of the Defendant, and later, he was aware that the bank was in the presence of the Defendant’s bitle. The Defendant sent text messages to the victim in order to immediately return it, and actually returned it, there was no intention of unlawful acquisition.
3) The Defendant of intimidation does not have a call with the victim on the date and time stated in the facts constituting an offense as indicated in the lower judgment, and there is no fact of intimidation as indicated in the lower judgment. B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant sent the victim a text message "on November 23, 201, because the defendant first informed the victim as IC case," and the defendant sent a meeting to the medical prison with the victim's husband at the same time on November 25, 2011. The defendant sent KRW 10 million to L who became aware of the defendant and the defendant's introduction around the same day of the meeting. The victim can be recognized as having delivered KRW 10 million to L who became aware of the defendant's introduction at the time of the above fact-finding. The following circumstances acknowledged by the record of the above fact-finding, namely, if the defendant received money in return for impairing the protection of the victim's personal safety, it appears that the defendant did not have any need to send money to the government prison with the victim, and the victim could not have delivered money to the defendant.