beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant did not deceive the victim company, nor had the intent to acquire money by deception, since he did not know that the document was a contract for vehicle loan, as the document was affixed with a seal as instructed by D, by deceiving the end of D, which would give the loan when he lends the name.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Nevertheless, the court below found all of the charges of this case guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court rejected the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel in detail, on the grounds that the Defendant and the defense counsel have the same grounds for appeal as those for the above appeal, and on the grounds that “a judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” was stated in detail.
The installment financing company is obligated to notify the loan requester of the circumstance that he/she had known that he/she applied for installment financing loans with the intent to lend the form of installment financing loan by means of installment financing without the intent of the loan requester to purchase and hold the vehicle in his/her own name. Thus, the loan requester is obligated to inform the installment financing company of the circumstance that he/she intends to make a loan by means of installment financing loan without the intent to purchase and hold the vehicle in advance in accordance with the new principle of good faith. Nevertheless, without notifying the fact that he/she would be notified of the act of requesting installment financing and allowing the payment of the loan, it would be by deceiving the transaction counterpart installment financing company (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828, Apr. 9, 2004). The court below is held guilty (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828, Apr. 9, 200).