beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant was duly paid the sales price of stone and the investment money from the injured party, and the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to acquire the stone.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misconception of facts.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to whether the Defendant was aware of the facts, the Defendant can be found to have acquired the investment from the damaged person under the name of the mining development project in China as shown in the facts charged
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
① The Defendant and the victim came to know from the temple, and the Defendant suggested that their past military career, etc. should be read as false and accessible to the victims, and that they should invest in the development of a mountain and a long-term mine in China for the sale of stone produced in China.
② As above, the Defendant and the victim entered into a joint agreement with the Defendant on the sales of building stones in Korea, and the victim paid the Defendant KRW 90 million to G account as the purchase price of building stones, but the Defendant did not use the said payment for the purchase of machinery.
③ In addition, the aggrieved party paid KRW 116 million to the Defendant for the purpose of securing the right to mine mining in China, but the Defendant did not use the said money as the fund for securing the right to mine mining in China.
④ The statements made at the investigative agency and court of the original instance, which correspond to the facts charged, such as the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the background of the victim’s investment, the details and methods of deception, etc., are specific and consistent, as well as the written contract made between the defendant