beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant alleged a mistake of facts as to the guilty portion of the Defendant’s guilty portion of the lower judgment and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges by misunderstanding the facts, even though the Defendant did not intend to deceive the victim at the time, while concluding a partnership agreement with the victim C (hereinafter “victim”) and failing to perform the contract by being bound by a sudden detention while preparing for being awarded a childcare
B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the facts-finding assertion on the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding the fact, even though the Defendant, even though he did not have the intent and ability to operate a child-care center even if he was paid the money, by deceiving the victim D (hereinafter “D”), thereby deceiving the victim by deceiving the victim of KRW 10 million.
C. The court below asserts that the defendant's punishment (one year of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service) on the grounds of unfair sentencing by both parties is too uneasible and unfair. The prosecutor argues that the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. (1) The court below rejected the defendant's assertion under the title "determination of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion" in the judgment of the court below, which states that the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is identical to the grounds for appeal of mistake of facts, and the court below rejected the above assertion. In light of the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just.
In addition, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances recognized by the records, namely, the defendant, although the defendant, as the victim, made an investment in the amount of KRW 30 million, to the victim, he/she would have the victim be awarded a successful contract for a childcare center at the time.