beta
Text
Defendant
All the appeals filed by the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Defendant
The victim of mistake of facts voluntarily made an investment in the indoor camping room (hereinafter referred to as the “instant camping room”) operated by the defendant, and the defendant does not have taken money by deceiving the victim.
Unlike the expected operation of the camping place, there was no intention to obtain money from the defendant because the enemy did not repay the investment money and distribute the profits.
The sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
The court below's sentence (e.g., e., e., g., e., e.
Judgment
The lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is consistent with the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim, from the police to the court of the lower court, consistently stated that “the Defendant borrowed money from the Defendant to the Defendant to make a mixed operation of the camping district in question,” and that the statement was specific, consistent, and otherwise there is no reason to doubt the credibility thereof; ② the Defendant would operate the camping district in this case as the victim, C, J, and Dong business around September 201, because the Defendant operated the camping district in this case as the victim, C, and C, and C, and C, and C, as the Defendant would have operated the camping district in this case, and thus, the victim would have been able to make a mixed operation by suggesting that “I would have the Defendant make a loan to the Defendant at once as I would like to do so.”
“Along with the fact that it is difficult to accept that the victim, who was aware of such circumstances, was able to make an investment in the camp of this case, because the Defendant had been operating the camp of this case with J and C as a partner at the time of receiving the loan from the victim, and C et al. had been in the state of business operation. It is also difficult to accept that the victim, who was aware of such circumstances, was able to make an investment in the camp of this case.