beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The misunderstanding of the fraud part against the victim C [2016 Gohap 46] ① It is true that each of the amounts listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below by the victim C was received from the victim C, but there was no deception of the victim in the process, and there was no intent to commit the crime by deception against the defendant.
The amount stated in paragraph (1) of Paragraph (2) of the crime No. 1 of the Act is not acquired through a request for university admission, but is paid fairly for extra educational expenses, and the amount stated in paragraph (3) is not obtained through acquiring the money under the name of the investigation response or the name of the special criminal deposit, but properly delivered with the stock investment. The amount stated in paragraph (2) of the crime No. 2 of the Act is not obtained through a bribe to be delivered to the auditor. It is not a bribe to be delivered to the auditor.
In relation to the money indicated in the judgment below, there is a fact that it is true that there is a name of “investigation response” such as “special criminal deposit,” etc., but such a name is transferred to G, who is the husband of the victim, rather than being delivered to the victim. It was well known that the victim is not a fact.
The victim made it difficult for the husband to be aware of the fact that he paid excessive amount at the expense of the victim outside the country. After the discussion with the victim, the defendant set the victim's husband G on the pretext of "investigation Response" such as "Special Criminal Deposit", etc., and only left differently from the fact.
② The lower court’s determination on the date and time of forgery of the indictment regarding the forged charge of the charge in the judgment of the lower court is not true, and this is merely a conjection.B. The fact that each of the money listed in Articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Criminal facts in the judgment of the lower court was received from the victim V, who misleads the victim V as to the charge of fraud [2016 Gohap 264], but the money received from the victim is a “AG”.