beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder, excluding a compensation order, shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, while misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, received money from the victim, was merely required to pay money, but did not speak as to the feed plant as stated in the judgment of the court below, and was believed to have held considerable claims at the time of the loan of this case, and could have created profits by operating the borrowed money to F, so at the time of the loan of this case, the Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the borrowed money.
B. The sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too heavy considering the fact that the defendant is against the unreasonable sentencing, the absence of criminal power in the same kind, the family relation of the defendant, the health condition of the defendant, etc.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.
1) The Defendant acquired KRW 60 million from the victim under the pretext of borrowing business funds related to a feed plant from around 40 years to a middle school, a person who had lived in a long-term foreign country and returned to Korea, with a view to borrowing business funds related to a feed plant. 2) The Defendant provided this money to F and used it as interest for the management expenses of the company.
Nevertheless, the defendant did not properly notify the victim of the use of the borrowed money at the time, and deceiving the victim for the use of the business fund as stated in the judgment of the court below.
3 In addition, the defendant asserts that there was a claim against K at the time of borrowing the above money from the victim and the defendant sufficient ability to repay the victim.
However, even if the defendant's alleged claim exists, considering the nature of the claim and the possibility of repayment, it cannot be deemed that the defendant sufficient to repay the claim. In addition, at the time, the defendant did not have any particular income due to the management difficulties of the operating company, and the company's debt also exceeds KRW 400 million