beta
Text
The judgment below
[2015 order 677, 2016 order 90, 2016 order 275, 2016 order 275, 2016 order 527, 2016 order / [2016 order 997].
Reasons
1. The court below's decision shall be made only to the extent of supplement of the reasons for appeal as stated in the reason for appeal, and it shall not be judged separately with respect to the assertion not stated in the reason for appeal.
The defendant only used the money received G in accordance with the agreement with G as E-loan acquisition fund, etc., and there is no fact of deceiving G to acquire the money.
The Defendant only borrowed money from S around October 2, 2014, and did not have obtained money by deceiving J, and there was no fact that J and Q were in fact in this regard.
The Defendant did not inflict any injury on theO on October 30, 2015.
There is no fact that the Defendant delivered 0.03 g of philopon P on March 2016 (misunderstanding of fact). The sentence (2 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 100,000 won additional collection, and 3 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the remaining crimes) sentenced by the lower court on December 19, 2016 is too unreasonable (unfair sentencing).
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant could only recognize the fact that he remitted KRW 5 million to G on October 7, 2014, according to the fact that he/she remitted KRW 5 million to G on October 7, 2014, and the Defendant received KRW 5 million from G on the same day.
there is no evidence that can be determined by a person.
The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is that the defendant received KRW 5 million from G on October 7, 2014.
The recognition is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to prove it.
Reasons for appeal in this part by the defendant are reasonable.
2) The following circumstances, which can be recognized by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, that is, the Defendant was in a situation where the economic situation was not good in April 2014 through September 2014, the Defendant’s money invested by the Defendant in relation to E Lending was small amount, and the Defendant received money from G.