beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Although the Defendant did not know that he had undermined the honor of the victim, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case by misunderstanding the fact.
2. We examine the reasoning of appeal. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant: (i) lent the amount of KRW 50 million to be used for the business funds of E, which is the husband of I, with the introduction of D; (ii) was set up a right to collateral security with the maximum amount of claims KRW 55 million on the apartment owned by I on April 26, 2012; (iii) the defendant was not paid the above loan to I; and (iv) the apartment was unable to receive money due to the senior mortgagee, etc. although the apartment was sold at auction, the defendant was unable to receive money due to the senior mortgagee, etc., on March 22, 2015; and (iii) the defendant was replaced by the victim or the victim in the above two churches, as described in the facts charged in the instant case.
(1) influent and fake money was deducted.
The money has been deducted.
The fact that “the victim was replaced by fraud” (the victim also lent KRW 50 million to I, and made a move-in report as a lessee in the above apartment complex for the purpose of securing the claim. As such, the victim was registered as the lessee, and the defendant was found to be in the order of priority over the victim in the above monetary dividends, and the defendant seems to have found the victim to comply with this.
The victim was registered as a tenant in the court of original instance, but the victim testified that there was no dividend actually received), and (4) it is recognized that the victim took out of the court of original instance, led the defendant, and assaulted the head of the defendant. According to the above facts of recognition, the statement that the defendant changed the morale of the defendant's money to the victim is a false statement of false facts, and thus, the statement that the victim changed the victim's money is prejudicial to the victim's reputation.