beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
B. On May 30, 2013, prosecutor 1) Regarding the mistake of facts, even though the prosecutor sufficiently recognizes that there was a criminal intent by deceit, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant. 2) The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts
A. On March 2013, the summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged was false to the effect that “When the Defendant takes over and operates the laundry of an I hotel, he may bring about about about KRW 40 million per month to the victim F. It would allow the victim to take over and operate the laundry of the I hotel, which would allow the victim to take over and operate the laundry as the representative director. Accordingly, the Defendant would request the payment of KRW 400 million for the laundry of the I hotel facility as the acquisition fund.”
However, at the time of fact, the Defendant was in a state that he was an operator of the said laundry, and the Defendant did not enter into the said laundry underwriting contract with the J on June 28, 2013, and only paid KRW 70 million under the pretext of down payment and intermediate payment, and had already used the money received from the victim for personal purposes. Therefore, the said laundry underwriting contract did not pay the remainder of KRW 280 million and did not have the intent or ability to allow the victim to take over and operate the said laundry, such as cancellation of the said laundry underwriting contract and return of KRW 70 million from J. In addition, if the said laundry underwriting contract is nonexistent, there was no intention or ability to return the acquired money to the victim.
Around May 30, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 400 million from the victim to one bank account in the Defendant’s wife G around May 30, 2013.
(b).