beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not mean that he will acquire the city bus company at the time of borrowing money from the victim, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation because he had the ability to repay at that time.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, it is recognized that the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged at the time of borrowing KRW 100 million from the victim (hereinafter “the borrowed money of this case”), deceivings the purpose of the use as stated in the facts charged, and at least there was a criminal intent of defraudation of the horses at least, such assertion
1) The victim consistently stated from the police to the court below that “the defendant agreed to take over a city bus company located in Msan, and he lent the investment money to the defendant for the loan (the investigation record 3,33,54, 110 pages, 46 pages). 2) The defendant and the victim stated that “D, who is the seat of the defendant and the victim, also told that “the victim would obtain one city bus at the time of lending money to the defendant” (the trial record page 71). This supports the credibility of the victim’s statement concerning the purpose of the loan of this case.
3) The Defendant stated that studio security deposit should be granted at the police first, and then borrowed the instant loan (in the face of 45 pages of the investigation record) and then reversed the Defendant’s statement (in the face of 57 pages of the investigation record) by borrowing the said money, and then borrowing the said money (in the face of 57 pages), the Defendant’s statement on the use of the instant loan is somewhat inconsistent. 4) The victim prepared the instant loan with the Mack loan, and the Defendant did not say that there was a building owned by the victim.
(Investigation Records 118 pages).