beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Since there is no fact that the defendant deceivings the victim of the mistake of facts, and only borrowed the money by paying interest at a high rate to the victim, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's crime of fraud is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant would be immediately elected as the next president of the F organization as the victim's person who was recognized in his country, and as if he had a considerable re-performance, he could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant had been aware of the fact by deceiving the victim about the value of security or the place of use, etc. without the ability to repay or intent to repay, as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
B. Although it is recognized that the Defendant paid each of the above amounts acquired by the Defendant from the victim as the loan money with an agreement that exceeds KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, the Defendant did not reach an agreement with the victim to recover damage or have reached an agreement with the victim up to the trial. Rather, the Defendant asserted the value of the G forest in this case against the victim that the value of the instant G forest in this case is KRW 400,00,000, and brought a lawsuit claiming settlement of the remainder value, claiming that the victim would not cooperate in the disposition of the said forest in this case, or claiming that the Defendant would be unable to repay the respective borrowed money by failing to cooperate in the disposition of the forest in this case, or that the Defendant paid another existing debt with the money obtained by the victim, it seems that the Defendant did not go against his mistake