beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant merely received KRW 100 million as a deposit in the sense of promising the contract for landscaping construction works as stated in the facts charged on the condition that the PF funds will be returned from the injured party upon the withdrawal of the PF funds, and there was no deception that “the 100 million won will be paid to the props by lending KRW 100 million, and the large forest industry will have entered into a contract with the contractor, and the large forest industry will have entered into a contract with the contractor, and the PF funds will be raised later than one month, so there was no intention to commit the crime by fraud by the Defendant.
subsection (b) of this section.
B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (one year and two months of imprisonment, suspension of execution, observation of protection, community service) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below's judgment is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts alleged by the defendant.
① The Defendant, at the court of the lower court’s trial, was aware of all the facts charged of the instant case, and then at the time of the trial, reversed the confession of the lower court to the effect that “the prosecutor was sentenced to a disposition of non-prosecution regarding other accusation cases similar to the instant case, and was expected to have agreed with the victim of the instant case, so the Defendant was sentenced to a fine at the court of the lower trial, and that it would have caused a confession rather than disputing the facts charged of the instant case, in the situation where it was bad to promote the new apartment construction project.”
The confession of the defendant in the court of first instance is different from the statement in the appellate court.