beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant borrowed money on behalf of the victim I to find out a restaurant operated by the victim in order to receive money from the victim D. However, G, who was accompanied with the Defendant at the time, only expressed the victim’s desire to do so, and there is no insult by the Defendant, such as taking the victim’s talk with a large sound.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the victim made a statement to the effect that “the defendant was able to report the victim himself/herself after entering a restaurant with G,” and the witness F of the court below who observed the crime of this case also made a statement to this effect; ② the witness G of the court below stated that the defendant was not memory as to whether or not the defendant was hypted during the investigation process; but ② the witness G of the court below stated that not only the defendant himself/herself was hypted during the trial process of the court below but also he/she was hypted by the victim, and it appears that he/she was unable to properly memory the specific situation under the influence of alcohol at the time. Thus, the defendant’s assertion is not justified.
3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the defendant's appeal is without merit, and is dismissed in accordance with Article 191 (1), Article 190 (1) and the main sentence of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant bears the costs of lawsuit at the original
[However, Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act in the application of the laws and regulations in the holding of the court below are clear that the phrase “Article 70(1) and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)” is a clerical error in Article 70 and Article 69(2) of the former Criminal Act. Thus, it shall be corrected ex officio under