beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) Although the “D” operated by the Defendant at the time of the misunderstanding of facts at the time of the instant case, the debt ratio was high, the N’s “N” did not appear to have been in the situation of the date of the due diligence due to a significant decrease in the debt ratio, and the Defendant owned approximately KRW 2.249 million in the name of the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife, and the Defendant borrowed KRW 2.8 billion in total 28 times in the form of check from January 2005 with the victim and the Defendant borrowed KRW 2.5 billion in the form of check from January 2005, whichever was 2.5 billion in total, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of the instant case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though it was difficult to view that there was an intention of the Defendant to commit fraud at the time of the instant case.
B. In light of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the amount of the fraud of this case is a large amount of KRW 300 million and that the victim was not agreed upon, the sentence of the court below against the defendant (old: 2 years of imprisonment) is too unfeasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion in detail, with a detailed statement of the judgment as to the defendant's assertion that there was no criminal intent by deception under the title of "the ground for determination of a crime" in the judgment of the court below. In comparison with the above judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
B. We examine the Defendant’s and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the Defendant, who operated the instant crime, satisfied the Defendant’s obligation.