beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of the fact, the Defendant did not request the victim to lend money necessary for contributing to Buddhist broadcasting, and KRW 100 million paid from the victim is not the loan but the lease deposit, and there was the intention to repay and the ability to repay at that time.
B. The sentence of the lower court against an unfair defendant (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order 120 hours) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds that it is recognized that the Defendant, even though he did not have the ability to repay, by deceiving the victim as if he would incur a big profit when he contributed to the Buddhist broadcast, and by receiving the delivery of KRW 100 million as the borrowed money, on the following grounds.
1) From the investigative agency to the court of the court below, the victim lent KRW 100 million to the victim “to repay money to the defendant in one month from lending money for his contribution to the Buddhist broadcast,” and consistently stated that the defendant did not deliver KRW 100 million as the deposit money for lease.
2) The lease agreement was drafted retrospectively from August 20, 2015, which was the date of the instant payment of KRW 100 million, on October 21 of the same year, which was later than the two months, and it was merely a mere fact that the victim made a request to prepare even a lease agreement, because it seems that the victim would have expressed that he/she would request the Defendant, who is a usual passenger, to use the loan certificate. 3) On May 4, 2016, while demanding the Defendant to pay the said amount, the victim borrowed KRW 100 million from the Defendant on May 31, 2016, “to pay the loan by May 31, 2016,” and on May 31, 2016, the victim was issued a written agreement on the repayment of the loan from the Defendant to August 30, 2016.