beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The fact-finding that the Defendant failed to pay the price of goods to the victims while operating the Mart as stated in the judgment of the court below is due to the fact that Qu has taken away the stores and goods. Thus, if not, he could continue to pay the price of goods for the business, and there was no intention to commit fraud.
B. The two-year imprisonment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that there was a criminal intent by deceitation to the Defendant at the time of each crime of this case, so this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit
1) While the Defendant was unable to pay the previous transaction price due to the failure to pay the additional meat, it changed its business registration and trade name under the name of the land owner, and was supplied from the victim W and Y, a new customer, under the changed name from the early police officer on June 2, 2011. 2) The Defendant was supplied with 32 million won from the victim W during several times during the period from June 2, 201 to June 8, 2011. The Defendant suspended a transaction under the status of payment of approximately 21 million won out of the price. From June 14, 2011 to June 17, 2011, the Defendant discontinued a transaction under the status of payment of approximately 39 million won in total from the victimY over several occasions during the period from June 14, 201 to June 17, 2011, and discontinued a transaction under the changed name of 20 million won and 60 million won in total.
(3) The Defendant, who received a start-up loan from the victim Y on or before June 14, 201, stated that the Defendant would have received a start-up loan in the name of V and would have paid the remaining land price. However, the Defendant did not receive the above loan, and it appears that there was no other method or plan to pay the remaining land price. (iv) The Defendant is only several million won as above.