beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Defendant
As the Defendant borrowed approximately KRW 40 million from the victim G and repaid approximately KRW 12 million among them, and the remainder of the loan was paid in kind in the manner of transferring the ownership of the Young-gu W apartment Nos. 503, 504, and 505 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) in the name of the non-indicted 5, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the above loan, and had no intention to commit fraud.
(misunderstanding of Facts as to the crime No. 2 in the original judgment). The Defendant acquired from G the substantial ownership of LAD car (hereinafter “instant car”) and did not keep the instant car for G.
(misunderstanding of Facts as to No. 3 Crimes in the original judgment). The sentencing of the lower court (as to the crimes No. 2 in the original judgment, the crimes listed in the table of crime No. 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14-17, 20, 21, 23, 29-3, 35-41 listed in the table of crime No. 1-6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14-17, 20, 21, 23, 29-3, and 35-41 listed in the judgment of the lower court:
Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted G of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that each of the frauds described in the above list of crimes committed against G was sufficiently recognized, among the facts charged by the prosecutor, but the court below acquitted the Defendant on the ground that such proof is insufficient. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
(M) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts against the crime No. 2 (G fraud) in the judgment of the lower court, this part of the charges can be fully recognized. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
① At the lower court’s court, G, as stated in this part of the facts charged, were the details of each delivery written on January 15, 2009 to April 2, 2012.