beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The victim, such as mistake of facts, was well aware of the actual operational form of the so-called exchange loan business. G, from the defendant, borrowed money from the defendant for the purpose of exchange loan business and carried out a separate business, thereby deceiving the defendant, and the defendant used part of the funds invested in G with permission from G as a substitute for the part of the funds invested in the loan business through exchange loan business. The defendant deceivings the victim for the purpose of the loan business through exchange loan business, and obtained the money by fraud, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.
B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant also asserted that the judgment of the lower court on the assertion of mistake of fact is identical to the assertion of mistake of fact, etc., and the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion by providing a detailed statement on the determination.
The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., the victim, consistently at the investigative agency and the court of the court below, stated to the effect that the amount remitted to the defendant after July 29, 2014, was paid as a business for loaning through a general exchange. Any G that received funds from the victim, etc. through the defendant was difficult from January 2014 to the first half of 2014, making it difficult for the victim, etc. to conduct the above business.
The statement was made by G, and U.S., who worked as an employee at the time of running a general exchange loan business, also stated to the effect that G’s general exchange loan business was not properly operated around the end of July 2014 at the court of first instance, and ② G is operating funds by receiving the amount of KRW 1 billion from others in January 2014, and G is being paid by G.