beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder, excluding a compensation order, shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant of mistake of facts was expected to start the artificial apartment of this case after the inspection for the use of the apartment of this case was conducted, but it was only impossible to start the wind that was arrested before the inspection for use due to the victims' complaint, and it did not have any intention or ability to execute it from the beginning. Thus, the defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of deception.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the fact that the defendant did not have the intent or ability to use the payment for the victims when concluding the thesis contract with the victims, and did not properly notify the victims of the intention or ability to use the payment for the victims, rather, that the defendant received intermediate payment or balance from the victims as soon as the goods were immediately purchased or the construction was commenced, and the defendant concluded the thesis contract on the premise that he did not undertake the work before the inspection of apartment use (it is without any evidence that the defendant agreed to commence the work after the inspection, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the part of the contract stating the "two months from the date of completion" refers to the period used by the defendant as the model bar, and the period and amount of payment of the contract, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant received the thesis work cost from the victims intentionally.
This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant acquired the construction cost by deceiving the victims that the Defendant would have executed a new apartment construction work, and committed the crime.