beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
With respect to the facts charged in the case No. 2015 High Order No. 982, the defendant was accused of the actual use of the loan from B as the real estate development project fund located in theJ at Boh City. In addition, the defendant was forced by B to deliver the loan amount of KRW 150 million to B without any choice but without any choice to go through public conflict or intimidation from B. The defendant did not deceiving the victim by making a false statement as in this part of the facts charged, and the defendant did not have any intention of deceiving the victim by making a false statement as in this part of the facts charged, and the defendant did not have any intention of deceiving the victim from the victim.
With respect to the facts charged in the case No. 517 of the Highest 2016, this case was found to have been committed by conspiracy by N, P, and Q Q Q Co., Ltd. to forge the documents stated in this part of the facts charged, and to have attempted to obtain money from the National Bank or the Defendant, and the Defendant refused to present the above documents that N had been forged and to request the loan, and there was only the fact that the Defendant offered to N the envelope a bag containing a business plan that had been submitted and kept by N for the loan examination, and there was no fact that the Defendant attempted to forge the documents as stated in this part of the facts charged, and to use them
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.
The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
As to the case No. 2015 High Order No. 982, the lower court determined that the lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, can recognize the Defendant’s criminal intent of deceiving the Victim G with regard to the facts leading up to the use of the borrowed money and the amount equivalent to the borrowed money, in full view of the circumstances as shown in the lower court’s reasoning.
The decision was determined.
The circumstances of the court below's judgment and the following evidence are acknowledged.