beta
Text
The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, excluding the compensation order, shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of one year and four months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles testified that U.S. was aware of the fact that the Defendant’s pension project was well being carried out at the time of borrowing at the court below’s decision and did not know that there was a debt. In light of the fact that the said victim was playing several times in the Defendant’s pension, it is difficult to see that the said victim was well aware about the Defendant’s pension operation status, the Defendant did not have sufficient financial conditions, such as lending money through bonds or loans, and that there was little active property generated by the Defendant’s disposal of the apartment, it is reasonable to see that the Defendant did not have an intent or ability to repay. Nevertheless, the court below determined that U.S.’s borrowing from September 15, 2015 to January 29, 2016 to be not constituted fraud. In so doing, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and thus, the lower court’s judgment is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court’s determination on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts: (a) the Defendant began to borrow operating funds from the lending company from the end of December 2014, 201; (b) the Defendant obtained considerable profits from the operation of the pent in 2009 to the end of 2014; and (c) the victim U was able to have known to a certain extent of the situation of the Defendant’s operation of the pentle in pentle from the nearest her Defendant and the Defendant’s operation; and (b) the Defendant operated “AB Bill” from October 2013 to October 2015; and (c) the Defendant borrowed operating funds from the lending company as it was not well as from the end of December 2014; (d) the Defendant began to borrow money from the lending company from the victim’s U.S. on or around September 10, 2015.