The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant agreed with the victim C to repay the borrowed money of this case under the condition to suspend the Defendant’s wife D’s release; and (b) the Defendant did not pay the above money to the victim because D was not released; (c) thus, the Defendant did not deceiving
Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the content that the “the victim,” as stated in the 7th sentence of the indictment of this case, changed the “the victim,” from the victim, who is in his seat, from the victim,” and the court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, so the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and we will examine below.
According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the grounds for appeal, the following circumstances can be acknowledged:
Victim C consistently with the law of the investigative agency and the court below on November 10, 2010, if the defendant lent 15 million won at the cost of his wife D's attorney on November 30, 2010, he would pay 16.5 million won plus interest of 1.5 million won on November 30, 2010.
of 15 million won in front of the check to the defendant at that place; and
The Defendant made a statement (the 7th page, the 29th page, and the 74th page of the trial record). On November 10, 2010, the Defendant drawn up and sent a custody (three pages of the evidence record) as follows to the victim:
Bo. Won 16,500,000,000 Won for each of the above amounts (Won 16,500,000) shall be preserved in full, and upon request, shall be returned until November 30, 2010.
On November 10, 2010, the above custody certificate from the above A C returned was to be returned to the victim by November 30, 2010, by November 30, 2010, and therefore it is consistent with the statement of the victim.
On the other hand, the defendant's release of D.