beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in the part of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 revolving Nos. 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 of the Defendant’s list of crimes.
B. In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges, despite the fact that the Defendant could fully recognize the facts charged, on the basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, as to the 4 and 7 parts of the [Attachment 1] Nos. 4 and 7 of the List of Crimes (1) (the part that acquired by deception of KRW 120 million on July 8, 2010 and KRW 50 million on February 2, 2011). Such judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence of the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too minor.
2. Determination
A. The lower court, based on the evidence adopted by the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, found facts as indicated in its reasoning, and found the following facts: ① consistent and credibility in the victim’s statement is consistent with the victim’s statement; on the other hand, the Defendant’s continued reversal of the victim’s statement on the nature of the money and the place of use; ② the Defendant provided money solely for the purpose of receiving interest on the second part of a month without specifying the place of investment.
However, in light of the Defendant’s details of payment of interest and the details of payment of investment funds to the victimized party, in a situation where the victimized party did not pay interest for the purpose of receiving interest on the second part of May 17, 2009, KRW 40 million on October 27, 2010, KRW 40 million on October 28, 2010, KRW 5 million on October 28, 2010, and KRW 5 million on February 6, 2013, it is difficult to gain the Defendant’s continued payment of the money received from the victimized party. ③ According to the financial transactions with I, F, and H account that the Defendant deposited money from the victimized party, the Defendant is M, N, and H account.