beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the victim B (Defendant 1) committed fraud with KRW 30 million on November 22, 2014 against the victim B (No. 2017Dahap242). The Defendant fully repaid the outstanding amount to Q Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Q”) at KRW 30 million received from the victim B.
Although Q’s agency contract (hereinafter “instant agency contract”) was terminated due to the aggravation of the relationship with Q Q, the Defendant, who was trying to succeed to the lessee status of the Dgarment store (hereinafter “instant clothing store”) recorded in the judgment of the court below from Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Q”), was not anticipated to terminate the instant agency contract with Q as at the time of borrowing KRW 30 million, and therefore, the Defendant did not have the intent to commit fraud.
Nevertheless, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in finding guilty of this part of the facts charged.
B) The Defendant, around September 2015, committed a fraud of KRW 495 million against the victim I (2017Dahap246) against the victim I (hereinafter “J”) by the J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”).
Corporation F (hereinafter referred to as “F”) with a loan under its name.
At the time of requesting a loan to the Fund, the loan obligations of KRW 500 million in the name of F (hereinafter “instant loan obligations”) around May 2016.
A) The Defendant is not guilty of defraudation because of ex officio closure due to ex officio and contingent circumstances, such as P’s unfair seizure. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles in finding guilty of this part of the facts charged. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
(b)an inspector 1.