beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) Fact-misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles that Defendant (1) attempted to carry out a new construction project by purchasing each G real estate and purchasing each G real estate, but as it was difficult to prepare an intermediate payment, it led to a failure to make an investment. As such, there was no intention to obtain fraud by the Defendant. Therefore,
It is also difficult to see it.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles by finding guilty of fraud.
(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below. In other words, the defendant: (i) around September 2009: (ii) around September 2009, the defendant purchased and borrowed a fake land of KRW 1.850 million in Seoul Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, and the intermediate payment investor already sought, and (iii) the intermediate payment investor has already claimed; (iv) there was no down payment, and (v) the victim has remitted a sum of KRW 250 million in monthly interest to the defendant; (ii) the defendant used 1.50 million out of the down payment received from the damaged person as down payment; and (ii) the defendant used the remainder for a purpose unrelated to the new construction of loans, such as one’s living expenses, card cards, etc.; and (iv) the defendant decided to make an investment in intermediate payment.
The J argues that the down payment was confiscated because it did not invest part payments, but even according to the Defendant’s assertion, there was no other part of the phone number other than the telephone number, and it is unclear whether the telephone number was actually admitted, and the Defendant did not receive a disposition such as an investment agreement from J, and ④ at the time, the Defendant is in arrears with the obligation of the lending institution.