beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The fact that a misunderstanding of facts Defendant borrowed money from victims under the pretext of the litigation cost of divorce lawsuit and the funds for the operation of the restaurant, but there was no sufficient ability to repay the money through the operation of the restaurant, including the money to receive a division of property, and the money to receive a division of property, and the deposit money for lease on a deposit basis.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The lower court also asserted that the Defendant was similar to the grounds for appeal under this part of this part. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined as a whole, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged in this case by deeming that the Defendant could have borrowed money from the victims even if he was in a state of loss of ability to repay due to excess of his obligation. (A) The Defendant was using high interest rate of 4% or 10% per month at the time of the instant case, and each of the instant loans also seems to have been used in paying the interest accrued therefrom.
B. The Defendant asserts that, in a lawsuit for divorce and division of property, the amount of KRW 240 million, which was in progress at the time of the above borrowing, was in a situation where the said loan was able to be paid as the amount of division of property, it cannot be concluded that the said loan exceeded the obligation at the time of the above borrowing.
However, it seems that a considerable number of active property claimed by the Defendant was included in the former spouse’s active property. In fact, in the above lawsuit, it is deemed that the Defendant was merely 5 million won of the divided property, and even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant was liable for the borrowed amount of KRW 200 million against E at the time, and was liable for the principal and debt amount of KRW 100 million, so contrary to the Defendant’s assertion.