beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
(a) It is reasonable that a misunderstanding of fact can fully pay interest promised to the victim E because the misunderstanding of fact makes an equity investment by means of a stock investment technique developed by the Defendant;
Since he received money in trust and did not pay money due to aggravation of the market situation, he did not have the intention to obtain money from the defendant.
B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.
2. Determination
A. The following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) even based on the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant borrowed the amount by promising the victim to pay interest calculated at a rate of 20% per annum with profits from stock investment; (ii) the Defendant borrowed the amount by promising the victim to pay the interest calculated at a rate of 20% per annum; (iii) the financial conditions and operation status of the company as a whole risk event, market situation, political situation, etc. of the company, as well as the financial condition and operation status of the company, changes in preference to consumers, performance of individual products released by the company, and investment tendency of other investors, etc., even if the company is a able investor, it is difficult to predict future trends even if it is an able investor.
Considering the ordinary rate of return, etc. that can be expected for stock investment, there is an inherent element of deception in the promise to pay interest on a high rate of 20% per annum by making a stock investment in return for the lending of money, and ② at the time, the Defendant borrowed the expected profit in return for the money.
However, when considering the defendant's age, educational background, social life, and stock investment experience, if it is not possible to raise a high rate of return on the assets that failed or expected to make a stock investment, the defendant in his/her property status at the time of the prosecutor's office did not have real estate since he/she sold an apartment house and made a stock investment.