beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to each of the crimes listed in the judgment of the court below in the judgment of the court below, there is no intention to obtain fraud from the defendant with regard to the crimes listed in the annexed crime Nos. 2 and 4 in the annexed crime list among the crimes stated in the judgment of the court below, and there is no deception since it was only
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (attached Form 1 and No. 2: Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months and the Attached Table 3 through 5: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine the argument of mistake of facts. In light of the following, it is difficult to find out that the victims known by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below paid the amount to the defendant, the reason and the name of the victims, the actual use of the amount received from the victims (it was not used as expenses for loan mediation or advance payment, and it was used for almost the personal use after it was paid), and the data or circumstances to deem that the defendant made a significant effort to execute the loan, and the contents of the defendant's lawsuit at the trial room related to the non-commercial loan are difficult to easily understand in light of the size of each of the loan brokerage transactions in this case and the amount of damage, etc., it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant received the money by deceiving each victims, such as the victim No. 2 and No. 4 of the crime list in the original trial with the criminal intent of defraudation.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that made the same conclusion is just, and there is no error of law by mistake that affected the judgment.
The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.
B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect
Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015