beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant actually borrowed money from the victim under the pretext of expenses for the test of masta in fact, and the F, who decided to do business with a matha, intended to repay the investment money to the victim, but the F did not comply with the investment promise, and did not intend to obtain money from the victim only because F did not pay the money to the victim as the promise.
B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. In light of the following circumstances recognized by the original judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts, the intent of defraudation can be sufficiently recognized.
① At the police investigation stage, the Defendant alleged to the effect that F lent KRW 30 million to F, and that F intended to receive the above money from F, but F borrowed KRW 30 million from the Defendant, but F, at first, he stated that “I never borrowed KRW 30,000 from the Defendant, and that the Defendant got a sample shop of this case, I knew about the fact that the Defendant got a sample shop of this case [7 pages 201 type 27952 evidence records (hereinafter “Evidence records of this case”)]] is contrary to the Defendant.
However, it was true that the Defendant had been able to take investment KRW 100,000 from F and to assist the Defendant in the business of raising the horses of this case. The F attempted to attract investors and make an investment in the money, but the Defendant did not make an offer to attract investors (Article 25, 33 of the evidence record of this case). The F reversed the statement and made a statement consistent with the argument of the Defendant’s appeal.
② However, as the Defendant and F are the co-offenders of the remainder of the fraud crime except for the instant crime against the victim, it is difficult to believe the Defendant and F as they are, as they are, the statement reversed as above.
The defendant is also the following.