beta
Text
The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.
The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. The decision of this court on the misunderstanding of the gist of the grounds for appeal (the defendant does not have obtained money from the victim G) and unfair sentencing
A. Various of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the trial court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the Defendant, at the D office, a construction executor he operated on April 14, 2006, lent KRW 180 million to E, 10 days after 10 days, if the Defendant borrowed KRW 180 million to E.
“Along with the Defendant’s speech that E would make a full payment within a short time, E made a statement to the effect that it is necessary to borrow money from the Defendant’s business (the victim G also intends to use money to pay 100,000,000 won from her natives) to her victim G in the name of the Defendant, and that E would use money (the victim G would also use money to pay 100,000,000 won from her natives). ② The same day is known to the Defendant that E borrowed money from her natives, and the Defendant confirmed the corporate account number of D, and the Defendant sent the passbook to E. Accordingly, the victim deposited KRW 180,00,000 to her passbook account. ③ After that, the Defendant did not dispute the Defendant’s duty to authentication if she requested notarial acts because she was unable to receive money lent by her G, and whether it was necessary to use money on the part of her inners.
In addition, even if the degree of participation in this case is minor compared to H, it is sufficient to view that the defendant's intent to repay money from the victim at least from the time when he/she borrowed money, and even though he/she knows that the defendant's ability to repay is very uncertain, he/she would have belonged to the victim with the criminal intent of dubation. Therefore, the above argument of the defendant disputing this issue is unacceptable.