beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant: (a) at the time of borrowing money from the victim; (b) at the time of the borrowing of money from the victim, requested a loan to the loyalty; (c) at the university, approximately KRW 600,00 won was monthly revenue as a part-time lecturer; and (d) there was an intention or ability to repay due to the de facto disposal authority for the house in which the Defendant resides; and (c) therefore
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The following circumstances are revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the Defendant introduced the victim as a professor at the Kudong University; (ii) the Defendant was only a part-time lecturer at the above university, but did not appear at the time of the commission of the crime; (iii) the Defendant was in bad credit standing status since 200; and (iv) the Defendant was in arrears with national taxes exceeding KRW 3 billion at the time of the instant crime; and (iii) the personal debt was KRW 150,000,000,000,000 won, and thus, the Defendant could dispose of the same household under the name as alleged by the Defendant.
Even if the defendant was able to receive or receive the balance of the construction cost of KRW 100 million, it seems that the defendant could not naturally lend money to the defendant if he knew that the defendant would not lend money to the defendant, as a matter of course, if he knew of the circumstances that the defendant would not be a university professor or university professor, bear the above large amount of debt and enter the construction site. ③ The defendant used the part of the person at the construction site of the convalescent hospital in which 50 million won was constructed by himself, as wages and material expenses, but he did not notify the victim of the above purpose at the time of borrowing the above money (Evidence No. 64 pages), and ④ The victim knew that the defendant would be able to pay the above large amount of debt and enter the construction site. ⑤ Nevertheless, the defendant could not lend money to him.