beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Of the facts charged in the instant case.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In the absence of the fact that the Defendant, by mistake of fact (the fraud of February 11, 201), had actually used most of the money borrowed from the victim as a study fund of the young children, had not induced the victim to repay within two to three months, and had not induced the victim to repay the amount of KRW 16 million until December 30, 201, by deceiving the victim to take over the amount of KRW 20 million, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. We examine the argument of mistake of facts. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the victim as a student's study fund on February 11, 201, and the defendant at the time did not have any particular revenue. However, according to the records, the defendant promised to pay KRW 12,289,614 out of the above money to the victim on the day he borrowed KRW 20 million from the victim to the court of Justice, such as remitting KRW 12,289,614 out of the above money to the victim from the victim's J in England, etc. At the time, the defendant actually used it as a student's study fund. At the time, the defendant said that he would pay the victim within two to three months. However, in light of the defendant's economic situation, the victim's relationship between the victim and the defendant, etc., the defendant promised to pay the amount within two to two to three months.
It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant leased the victim under the premise that the victim will be repaid within two to three months, the Defendant’s KRW 2 million on August 4, 201, and the same year.
9. In full view of the fact that a sum of KRW 14 million, including KRW 16.1 million and KRW 2 million on December 30, 1999, appears to have been repaid out of the above borrowed amount of KRW 20 million, the Defendant borrowed the above KRW 20 million from the victim as the intent of deceiving the victim.