beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts 1) In relation to fraud, the Defendant had the intent to repay money from the victim D at the time of borrowing money. 2) In relation to the crime of invalidation of indication on official duties, there was no attachment marking on the Monoculco, minc cap, and Baccot, and the above articles are not the Defendant, but Qu did not dispose of the above articles, but Qu found articles.
In addition, since I at the time sold the above goods to the defendant, I did not have the intention of the crime of invalidation of an indication in the line of duty.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (two months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too heavy.
2. Determination
A. 1) In light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant, when considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below as a whole, obtained money from the victim D without the victim D's ability to repay and intent to repay the money. This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit. A) At the time when the defendant received money from the victim D, he was liable for the obligation of approximately KRW 80 million to other creditors, including M, including M, and the income was not specified, and thus, he borrowed money by paying interest at a rate of 5% per month for the repayment of money borrowed from other persons.
B) Unlike the victim’s statement, the Defendant paid KRW 10 million out of KRW 30 million, which was first received from the victim as debt repayment to M, and used to pay for the remainder. (C) The Defendant applied for business credit loan amounting to KRW 40 million at the location of the Maamambadong branch of the Maamba Bank in order to pay the victim to the victim, but there is a change in fact that other creditors did not proceed with the loan by seizing the account, but the fact is the Defendant’s obligation.