beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The main reason why the Defendant was unable to repay money borrowed from the victim is that the victim received an emergency interest exceeding 365% per annum.
In addition, the defendant has already repaid the money borrowed from the victim.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, deception as an action of fraud does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient to say that it is the basis of the judgment for an actor to conduct the act of disposal of property that the actor wishes by omitting the other party in error. Therefore, in a case where the use belongs and borrows money and the other party would have not been lent if the other party would have been notified of the true use, deception, which is the action of fraud, should be deemed to have been committed.
(Supreme Court Decision 95Do707 delivered on September 15, 1995). As properly stated in the court below, the contents of the instant deception are as follows: (a) the Defendant did not intend to obtain additional loans from the Korea Technology Finance Corporation; and (b) borrowed money from the victim as if the Defendant received additional loans and repaid the borrowed money with the intent to use the Defendant’s personal debt repayment; and (c) the Defendant voluntarily stated in the investigative agency that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim with the same purport as stated in the “net Act” column in the crime chart, even though the Defendant did not have applied for additional loans or subsidies to pay interest on the existing obligation. If the Defendant notified the victim of the true purpose of use, the amount equivalent to the Defendant has already been.