beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In addition, it is true that the defendant of mistake of facts lent KRW 100 million to I out of the funds borrowed from the victim, and the defendant was found to have the intention or ability to repay to the victim by receiving a retirement allowance security loan from I, and the court below convicted the defendant by misunderstanding the fact.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (7 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) The determination of the assertion of mistake of facts is sufficient if the deception as an action of fraud does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is related to the facts that form the basis of the judgment to allow the actor to perform the act of disposal of property he wishes by mistake. Thus, in the case of taking advantage of money and taking advantage of money, if the other party would have not borrowed money if he had notified the real purpose, the deception as an action of fraud should be deemed to have been committed.
(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do2828 delivered on February 27, 1996, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was aware of the fact that the victim had received the payment of money from the victim prior to the borrowing of J apartment-free interest as stated in the facts charged of this case, but the victim did not comply with the request. The defendant, from June 2014, 2014, made a false statement to the effect that "the victim had to find the building because there are two buildings on the side of the side and there were two buildings on the side of the side, and because there was a building in excess of the building because the wife and South were unable to receive the payment due to the loan from the side of the building, it is recognized that the defendant did not lend the money to the victim without paying the money (the defendant did not lend the money to the above side of the building). The victim was around October 2014.