beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In fact-finding the Defendant’s project to implement the Seoul Urban Residential Housing (hereinafter “instant project”) in the Guri-si, Guri-si.
(2) The first instance court recognized the fact that the instant project did not properly proceed but did not intend to commit the crime of deception, and found guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) as stated in its holding, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts. (2) The first instance court sentenced the sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) to the unfair sentencing is too unreasonable, because it is too unreasonable, because the owner of the land had the ability to repay and considerable success.
(b)the sentence of the first instance court for the inspection is too uneasible and unreasonable;
2. Determination:
A. As the grounds of appeal for the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant alleged that he had no intention to commit the crime of defraudation at the time when he received the money from the victim of this case. In addition to the circumstances stated in the judgment that the court of first instance properly explained in the process of this part of the judgment, the court of first instance did not agree with the fact that there is no room to regard the defendant as having the ability to perform the payment related to the possession of the above property at the time, since there is no specific value because the commercial building and the Mobel building located in the 400 business site of this case that the defendant had owned at the time of the time and there was no specific value because all of the business site of this case had already been provided as security prior to that time and there is no specific value.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.
B. The instant crime on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor is based on the Defendant’s ability to pay the debt and objection.