beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts did not deceiving the victim, and there was no intention to commit fraud because the Defendant had the intention to repay and had the ability to repay. Since the Defendant had a monetary claim against another person at the time of borrowing money from the victims, it was thought that he would have received a return, and there was no false statement that he borrowed money from the victims. In particular, the victim B was aware of the fact that the Defendant was not able to repay the borrowed money to C, and the Defendant suggested a loan first. The Defendant had made a lot of monetary transactions with the victim prior to this, and during that period, the Defendant continued to pay 80,000 won interest to the victim. The Defendant continued to pay 80,000 won interest to the victim B, and the Defendant could no longer pay the interest by urging the victim to repay and inducing the Defendant.2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unfair.
B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant and the defense counsel in the lower court already asserted that the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts was not significantly different from the grounds for appeal of this case at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s above assertion on the following grounds: “The Defendant appears to have been in a situation where, considering the size of the Defendant’s obligation at the time of each of the instant crimes, it would have been difficult for the Defendant to repay to the victims due to its own ability, so-called a return of money borrowed from a third party after receiving money from the victims, and even if it was impossible to do so, the Defendant was
A thorough examination of records reveals that the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and it misleads the facts.