- -

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. There was no misunderstanding of the facts against the judgment of the court of first instance and misunderstanding of the legal principles, that the Defendant stated that “I would be able to return the principal if her finites only two months prior to the second month, so I would be able to make investments.”

At the time, the defendant was gaining significant profits through the lending company, but only failed to comply with the promise to the victim B by embezzlement of his employees.

Therefore, since it cannot be deemed that “the Defendant deceptioned the victim B” or “the Defendant had a criminal intent to commit fraud,” the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts.

B. The punishment of the lower court No. 1 (two years of imprisonment) and the punishment of the lower court No. 2 (two years of imprisonment and one year of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, the court of first instance held ex officio the victim S and the victim TU part 1) decided to hold concurrent hearings of the appeal case against the judgment of the court of first instance and the appeal case against the judgment of the court of second instance against the judgment of the

Of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, the crime of the victim S (the Incheon District Court 2020 Gohap 371 Gohap), and the crime of the victim TU (the Incheon District Court 2020 Gohap 441) are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, one punishment should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this respect, among the judgment of the first instance court and the judgment of the second instance, the victim S and the victim TU cannot be maintained as they are.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court of original instance, so it is judged.

2) The lower court, as indicated in its reasoning, found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, based on various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.

In light of all the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the first instance court and the trial court, the judgment of the first instance court is just, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.