beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder, excluding the part of the application for compensation order, shall be reversed.
Defendant 2014 Highest857, 201.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts1) [2014Da1408] On March 4, 2010, the Defendant did not commit deception against the victim AC, and did not participate in deception against the victim of M or BH. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the above fraud was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts. 2] [2] on August 11, 2010, the Defendant borrowed money from the victim as stated in the facts charged, but there was no intention to commit deception.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the above fraud guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.
3) [2014 Highest 1783] The Defendant was not guilty of deception against the victim AJ and NN, and the Defendant was not involved in deception against the victim AJ and the victim AG. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of each of the above fraud was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts. 4] [14 Highest 1141] The Defendant reported false facts, thereby failing to dismiss the victim AO, and did not intend to commit a false accusation.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the above fraud guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
5) [2015No. 1084] Fraud against AR] The Defendant was paid the apartment sales contract amount from AR to the victim without the criminal intent of defraudation. That is, the Defendant was believed to have taken over the right to dispose of the apartment from AV due to the mistake that he/she was deceiving from AV, and could transfer it to the above victim. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the above fraud was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 6] [6] The Defendant committed deception against the victim E and B, as described in the facts charged, against the victim E and B.