beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) The Defendant, as a defense counsel (A), borrowed KRW 5,000,00 from the defrauded as litigation cost around October 26, 2009, the sum of KRW 15,000,000 (No. 7,8,000 in attached crimes as indicated in the facts charged), KRW 30,00,000 as a deposit for lease on October 30, 209 (attached crime No. 9), and KRW 10,00,000 as a deposit on November 19, 209 (attached crime No. 16,17) for the purpose of deposit money. However, the Defendant borrowed KRW 55,00,000 for the purpose of borrowing KRW 16,00,00 as a result of the fact that the victimized person was aware of a very difficult situation, and there is no fact that the Defendant entices the victim about his ability to repay or intent to repay.
In addition, the remainder of the above part is not borrowed from the person who suffered damage under the pretext of lag, etc.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged of the instant fraud.
(B) The embezzlement Defendant received KRW 200,000,000 from the injured party for the purchase of the tree, and purchased it with the said money, and sold it at KRW 62,00,000 according to the direction of the injured party, and arbitrarily lent the said KRW 62,00,000 to P without the injured party’s consent. Since the money kept by the Defendant was eventually KRW 62,00,000, the amount of damage in the instant embezzlement charges is below KRW 62,00,000. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that 20,000,000 won was recognized as the amount of embezzlement, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
(2) In light of the fact that there are circumstances to consider the background leading up to the commission of each of the instant crimes, and efforts are made to recover damage, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced one and half years of imprisonment and two months of imprisonment is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) in this case deceivings the victim who was under the full belief of the defendant and thereby defrauds 223,00,000 won.