beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts is believed to have the land compensation to be actually received by Defendant B, and the Defendant borrowed money to the victim by promising the victim to receive the above land compensation and to repay the borrowed money. As such, there was no intention to obtain the victim by deception. Defendant A1) The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
B. As to the crime of 1-B of the judgment of the court below on the misunderstanding of facts, Defendant B (Defendant B1) only allowed Defendant A to use his account number and did not have been involved in Defendant A’s fraud. 2) The judgment of the court of unfair sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in determining the misunderstanding of facts, i.e., ① the defendant acknowledged the fact that he borrowed money from the victim knowing that the land compensation claimed by the defendant B was false, ② all the facts charged in this case was led by the defendant in the investigation process; ② the defendant asked the victim to talk as if he led the crime of fraud in this case; ③ the defendant, as the land compensation would have been definitely known, once again by deceiving the victim as he did not receive the land compensation, can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim with the intent of deception, even though he was aware of the fact that there was no land compensation to be actually received. Accordingly, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged in this case, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that there was no land compensation to be actually received. The defendant's assertion that unfair sentencing is disadvantageous to the defendant as follows.
The defendant is a victim.