beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of six months.
except that this shall not apply.
Reasons
The defendant of the 2017 High Order 7732 case (Defendant A) believed N to the effect that there is a KRW 200,000,000,000,000 won, and delivered it to L by the victim, and only received KRW 150,000 from L by the victim and delivered it to N, so there is no fact of deceiving L by the victim.
Defendant 2017 High Order 3748 (Defendant 2) only exchanged KRW 300 million in cash upon A’s request and delivered the check to A to the victim I and G, and there was no fact that the Defendant participated in the instant fraud.
The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 6 months, Defendant B: imprisonment for 8 months, suspended execution for 2 years, community service work for 120 hours) is too unreasonable.
The Defendant, even in the lower court, argued the same purport as the grounds for appeal under this part of this case, and rejected the above assertion in detail, on the grounds that the lower court made a decision on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts.
The following facts are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the victim L and N were not aware from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, and ② the statement that N is necessary for golding with the Defendant and AH, etc. in the court of the court of the court below, and the Defendant can seek golding from the Defendant.
N merely speaks that the defendant will be forced to be golded first.
the proposal was not proposed
In addition to the fact that the Defendant stated, ③ in a telephone conversation with the victim L, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that the Defendant “influence of conditions” and “influence of conditions, so it is difficult to believe that there is a very high resistance,” etc. (the 11th page and 15th page of the evidence record of 2017 No. 83149, supra), etc., the Defendant could recognize the fact that he deceptioned the victim L.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
Part on the 2017 High Order 3748 case (Defendant B).