beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts (the fraud against the victim F, embezzlement, and fraud against the victim F), the Defendant thought that if the business promoted in China was successful, it would be able to fully repay the borrowed money to the victim F, and the victim F would have been or could have been able to anticipate the risk of future delay of repayment or impossibility of repayment because he was well aware of the content of the Chinese business, and even though the Defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not have any criminal intent to commit fraud, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges by misunderstanding of facts.
(B) As to embezzlement against the victim F, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges on the following grounds: (a) in full view of the fact that: (b) the victim F was aware of the transfer of ownership, establishment of a right to collateral security, and cancellation of the ownership of the IF car; (b) the Defendant continued to use the said car without raising any objection to the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant paid KRW 10 million to the victim F with the purchase price of the said car on January 24, 2013; (b) the Defendant purchased the said car, not delegated the sale of the said car from the victim F; and (d) paid the said purchase price.
(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. In full view of the facts established by the prosecutor (1) and the mistake of facts (1) (the fraud against the victim M, Q and J, the relationship between the defendant and the victims, the document of a monetary loan contract concluded between the defendant and the victim, the defendant's ability to repay the defendant, etc., the fact that the defendant deceivings the victims even though the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the installments normally as stated in the facts charged, can be acknowledged.
Nevertheless, the lower court did not err.