beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant paid the Defendant’s obligation not to manage D on behalf of the Defendant’s wife G, and then requested D to provide funds to D, and that D would give a discount on three copies of the household check of G.
It is only the delivery of three copies of household checks to D, and there is no fact of deceiving the victim by deceiving the victim.
In addition, the defendant borrowed the money of this case from D other than the victim.
Nevertheless, the court below found the victim guilty by recognizing the establishment of fraud against the victim. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts, as alleged by the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
① Although the victim stated somewhat unclear matters concerning the timing and frequency of the Defendant’s only the victim was the victim, the victim and D consistently stated in the investigation agency and the court of the court below that “The victim received the family receipts of this case from D, received through D, and subsequently paid the family receipts of this case to G account in the name of G presented by the Defendant,” the main part corresponding to the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, which stated that “The victim received the family receipts of this case from D as stated in the judgment of the court below.”
② On the grounds that the Defendant received the instant money, the police stated that “the Defendant would borrow the said KRW 7.9.6 billion from D, and would repay the said money to D with debt issues, such as the management expenses of the building in itself and D.” However, the prosecutor later stated that “the Defendant would pay the instant money under the pretext of repayment of KRW 1.6 billion to D himself.”