beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the defendant's economic situation at the time of application for the loan of this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the loan of this case equivalent to KRW 30 million, and the defendant's failure to repay the loan of this case is due to the defendant's unexpected injury that was caused by the singish fraud since one year after the above loan was implemented. The content of the letter of commitment of this case submitted by the defendant to the victim was not a factor to determine whether to execute the loan of this case, that is, "the defendant would not receive a loan from another financial institution during 15 business days after the execution of the loan of this case" was not a factor to determine whether to execute the loan of this case. Thus, the defendant's plan to obtain an additional loan from another financial institution after the above loan of this case was implemented does not constitute deception.
Therefore, the defendant deceivings the victim.
The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The deception as a requirement for misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to observe each other in property transactional relationships, and it does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient that it constitutes the basis of judgment for an actor to make a disposal of property that the actor wishes by omitting the other party into mistake.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828, Apr. 9, 2004). The original judgment is legitimate.