beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant merely introduced the victim E to F upon the F’s request, and the F borrowed KRW 15 million from the victim. However, as stated in the judgment below, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim to deliver KRW 15 million to F, and the Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the facts alleged in the appeal were erroneous as alleged in the grounds for appeal, and the lower court, as to this, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the evidence stated in the lower judgment, namely, ① the victim was unaware of the facts with F, and the Defendant prepared a written pledge (in the investigation record No. 7 of the victim’s loan amount, the victim did not know of the loan amount; ② the Defendant had a debt amounting to KRW 23 million with F; ② the Defendant had a debt amounting to KRW 23 million, but the Defendant could have the victim deliver KRW 15 million to F while he did not repay the loan amounting to KRW 15 million; ③ at the time of borrowing the loan amount as indicated in the judgment, the Defendant had already received the Japanese visa and did not need to separately prove the balance (the victim appears to have issued a passport on May 4, 2009, which was issued to F, which was issued on May 8, 2009).
The Defendant stated that the Defendant did not have any particular occupation or ability at the time, and that the Defendant failed to repay the borrowed money for a considerable period of time after borrowing money (the Defendant paid the victim a considerable amount of money).
One of the arguments is that the victim has not submitted objective data to prove it.