beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-misunderstanding: (a) the sum of the purchase price and the incidental expenses, etc. of the Gui-si D (hereinafter “instant loan”); and (b) the sum of the purchase price and the incidental expenses, etc. of the Seo-gu, Daejeon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “each of the instant loan”) stated in paragraph (2) of the instant charges was KRW 2300,000,000; (c) the Defendant was the seller, and the Defendant was the entire seller; (d) made a multiple contract with the lower sales price.
In other words, in relation to the loan brokerage of this case, the defendant did not deceiving the victim as 2.3 million won, despite the fact that the sum of the actual purchase price and incidental expenses is KRW 189.4 million and the difference was acquired by deception.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting Defendant 1 of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, but the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.
The judgment below
In addition to the following circumstances known by the records, such judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.
subsection (b) of this section.
1) In the lower court’s trial, I testified that “The instant loan seller received KRW 182 million as the sales price of the instant loan,” and that “the instant loan is not a thing capable of preparing the tea contract.”
2) The J, which brokered the sale of the instant loan, also held in the court below as follows: “The actual purchase price of the instant loan is KRW 182 million; and “the sale price of the instant loan is KRW 182 million, which would have been at least 182 million, to the seller who would have sold the instant loan.”