beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The Defendant did not agree to pay the victim I, J, M, P, and Q with the funds for the purpose of sale and purchase of the real estate, and did not know well about the PF funds. The Defendant did not deceiving the victims as in the facts charged. 2) The Defendant did not constitute deception because he had an intention to repay the borrowed funds to the victim I, thereby not constituting deception.
B. The imprisonment with labor for one year (one year of imprisonment) of the first instance of unfair sentencing is excessively unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. In light of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court claiming the misunderstanding of the facts regarding H building-related fraud, the Defendant could not obtain part of the above funds or repay the secured debt of the right to collateral security established by the bank with respect to the promotion of the reconstruction project of the Seocho-gu Seoul High School (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) as stated in this part of the facts charged, even if the funds of the bank were to be raised by the PF of the said funds, but the Defendant could not fully recognize the fact that the said victims deceiving the victim to repay the secured debt of H building-mortgage with each of the above PF funds to the victim I, J, M, and P.
(On the other hand, since the facts charged on the fraud of the victim Q Q are not the purport of deceiving the defendant to pay the secured debt of HF funds, this part of the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is not an issue). Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is not accepted.
1) The victim I, M (the victim J, and the victim J and P involved in the sale of each H partitioned building.
The defendant paid a loan to the commercial building of this case by December 30, 2009 from each investigative agency to the court of the first instance. The defendant pays a loan to the commercial building of this case until January 30, 2010.