beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal doctrine that the Defendant was close to the victims, and that some victims continued to engage in money transactions before the victims, the victims were aware of the Defendant’s credit standing, repayment ability, etc.
I must see that there was a criminal intent to commit fraud against the defendant.
It is difficult to see it.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The court below's determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The court below found the defendant guilty on the grounds that, although there are some differences in the details of each of the loans of this case, the contents of the statement made in the investigative agency or court by the victims about the conditions and amount, the next purpose, etc. of the loans of this case, and as a whole, it is consistent and relatively specific, it is hard to find the defendant as a whole. However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victims because there was no other special property, it is unlikely that he would not properly proceed with the business in a normal manner at the time of receiving money from the victims, and even if he borrowed money from the victims, there was no possibility of changing it within a short period. A considerable portion of the money borrowed by the defendant was used for the victims, and the victims did not easily lend money to the defendant if they had been aware of the above circumstances, and in full view of these circumstances and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant could be sufficiently recognized as deceiving the victims as stated in the facts charged at least.
2) Where the injured party is aware of the Defendant’s credit standing, and the risk of delay in repayment or impossibility of repayment is anticipated or could have been anticipated, then the injured party is likely to have anticipated.