beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-misunderstanding is that the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the consent of the owner, etc. upon the explanation or solicitation of the real estate intermediary, by guiding the terms of the lease contract in the name of C, and it does not require C to enter into the instant lease loan contract from the beginning to use the lease fund as the purchase price for the apartment of this case. Moreover, the Defendant has the intent and ability to repay the loan later at the time of entering into the instant lease loan contract, and even though he did not intend to commit the crime of deception or fraud, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the crime of fraud against the Defendant otherwise erred by misapprehending the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the assertion of mistake of the above facts, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in its reasoning. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the name of the lender who is the person involved in the case, and ② E, a seller of the instant apartment, was the first plan for the purchase of the instant apartment from the beginning.
(2) On April 19, 2013, the Defendant and C purchased the instant apartment with a security loan and a security loan under the name of the Defendant, based on the fact that the instant lease loan under the name of C was made on April 15, 2013 and was temporarily transferred to the resident registration of C on April 19, 2013 (if the effect of a pledge right on the right to claim the return of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis against the owner of an apartment who borrowed the deposit for lease on a deposit basis is lost), the Defendant and C purchased the instant apartment with a security loan and a security loan under the name of the Defendant. As such, C’s lease and the Defendant’s name led by the Defendant.