beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case without deceiving the victim as follows, and even though the intention of deception is not recognized, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts
1) The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, did not implicitly induce the victim by acting as if he had been guaranteed the lease deposit amount of KRW 350 million under the forged lease contract as if he acted in the same manner as in the indictment. 2) In relation to the No. 1 of the annexed crime list in the indictment of this case, the Defendant would use the victim for the purpose of directors' expenses and individuals. It did not mean that he borrowed money from the victim as stated in the
3) Regarding the [Attachment List Nos. 2 of the indictment of this case, the Defendant used KRW 20 million for the actual purchase cost of the right to purchase the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the right, and thereafter the Defendant paid KRW 25 million to the victim in full. 4) As to the [Attachment Table No. 3 of the indictment of this case, the Defendant paid KRW 100 million to Q who actually
5) Regarding the [Attachment Table 4] of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant borrowed money under the name of “the down payment of the building located in the daily area” does not borrow from the J as the selling price of the building in the form of “the down payment of the building located in the daily area,” and the purchase of the building was unpaid and lent to the J, but there was no intention of deceiving the victim as being unable to repay it to the victim due to the failure of the J to repay it, and there was no intention of deceiving the victim. 6) In relation to the [Attachment Table 5] of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant was invested in KRW 180 million from the victim under the name of “investment in the purchase of the claim with the lien (the amount actually received is KRW 160 million)” and the claim amounting to KRW 90 million among them.