beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning each crime of Nos. 1, 7, and 8 of the ruling shall be reversed.
As to the crime of Nos. 7 and 8 of the judgment of the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts (the part concerning D's fraud (the crime of fraud No. 1)) was erroneous in the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the fraud of D even though it was known that it was difficult for the defendant to take a financial situation at the time of lending money to the defendant, but only one successful decision was possible.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and four months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 at the market, and the crimes of No. 1, 7, and 8 at the market) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of the facts charged regarding D’s fraud (the crime of fraud No. 1) was false to the effect that “The Defendant, while operating a planning real estate business entity, shall pay interest on D with a loan of KRW 15 million as it is urgently required to pay the company funds,” at a non-permanent place around October 12, 2010.”
However, as the planning real estate company, which had been operated without any particular property at the time, was not in good condition and its employees were in arrears, and even after receiving the purchase price from a large number of investors, it was used as company operating expenses, etc., and was urged to repay the land due to the failure to complete the registration of ownership transfer, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, there was no intention or ability to pay the interest normally and to repay the repayment obligation.
The Defendant received KRW 15 million from D, from that time, from April 17, 2012, the sum of KRW 50,60,000,000 from that time, as indicated in the list of crimes (hereinafter “crime list”) as indicated in the attached Table of the lower judgment, from that time to that time.
B. The lower court determined that the Defendant may be convicted of the above facts charged in full view of the evidence in its judgment, and that the Defendant is the Defendant.