beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below, the part of the crime Nos. 1, 2, 26, 30, 31, 33, 45, and 46 in the crime list as stated in the judgment of the court below was merely lent money to the victim and borrowed money. The remaining part was only a part of the victim's play for the number of days through the defendant, and the defendant did not defraud money by deceiving the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, but the judgment below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case was erroneous
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized as having received money under the name of the victim by deceiving the victim as stated in the judgment below, and according to the above evidence, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money to the defendant. Thus, the defendant's assertion of mistake of
The victim D, from around August 2013 to the court of the court below, if the defendant supplements only documents insufficient to the Gu office under its jurisdiction from around August 2013, 2013, the victim D would be able to obtain a personal taxi driver's license so that the victim can operate it.
From October 2013, it is false that the defendant's father transferred his/her management right to KT subsidiaries operated by his/her small father, and that he/she was ordered to receive the management right of his/her waste company operated by his/her mother in addition to it on January 2014.
On the other hand, a false statement is made by demanding the victim to continue to lend money to the victim, and 63,900,000 won was delivered over 47 times as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there was no fact of playing days through the defendant, and the statement is specific, consistent and consistent.