beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below), the defendant had an intention to repay each money recorded in the facts charged from the victim at the time of borrowing the money, as well as there was sufficient ability to repay real estate that is expected to increase the price by raising more than KRW 100 million a year and holding a considerable amount of real estate expected to increase the land price, and as the urban planning project has been considerably interrupted in raising funds on the wind that would be long-term differently from the anticipated, it is not a crime of fraud. However, the court below concluded that the defendant by deceiving the victim with the intention of defraudation of facts as stated in the judgment of the court below, and therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The court below's decision of unjust sentencing (as to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below), which was sentenced to the defendant by mistake
B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (connot guilty part of the lower judgment) and the purport that the Defendant used the borrowed money to the effect that “the Defendant uses the borrowed money for the purpose of changing a residential area” to the victim, and the victim stated that “the land price increase in the Defendant and the wife-owned land was anticipated at the time of changing the form and quality, making it easy for the victim to repay his/her debts, making it easy for him/her to repay his/her debts,” and that the Defendant used the borrowed money to repay his/her other debts, the lower court fully recognizes that the Defendant committed the fraudulent act by making it clear that the Defendant would not lend his/her money to the victim if he/she notified the genuine purpose of the lending of money.”
The judgment of the court below was erroneous by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
(a) each;