beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the guilty portion and the par value amount of 76 million won and the due date of payment shall be set forth in a promissory note on December 30, 2008.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the fraud part of the charge part), Defendant borrowed a bill from the victim for D on June 30, 2009, the face value of KRW 41,052,30, and the due date for payment. However, the Defendant merely borrowed the bill from the victim according to D’s instructions, and the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the bill was not settled because he was unaware of D’s financial standing or financing plan, and that the bill was not settled and was in default, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to obtain the bill. 2) The sentence of the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in August, and community service) is too unreasonable.
B. In full view of the evidence duly submitted by the prosecutor as to the non-guilty portion of the charge of breach of trust as to the charge of securing the price of the goods in arrears, the prosecutor 1 included F's claim on the secured debt of the mortgage (hereinafter "mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-backed
B) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly submitted by the prosecutor as to the non-guilty portion on the charge of the breach of trust, which secured the Chapter 1 of Promissory Notes worth KRW 76 million at the face value and the due date on December 30, 2008, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have completely extinguished the F’s obligation as to F’s D at the time of cancelling the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage of this case, and the above Promissory Notes claim is still included in the secured claim of the instant right to collateral of the instant right to collateral of this case, and thus, this part of the facts charged can be sufficiently recognized. (2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant is identical to this part of the grounds for appeal.