beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Error 1) Fraud 1) The Defendant committed fraud against the victim D on April 17, 2013, which was not D but the other party to the transaction of the swine machine at the FF office in the Dispute Resolution Bank Co., Ltd., and the Defendant was guilty of the charge by mistake of facts and not guilty even though he did not have deceiving D and had the intent to commit the crime of deception. 2) The Defendant was supplied by the J operating the “L” on behalf of Q, and the Defendant was supplied the U.S. LA conflict funds by the J operating the “L” on behalf of Q. Since the Defendant was Q Q who was not the party to the transaction with the J and the senior, the Defendant was not the Defendant, and the Defendant was not guilty of the crime of deception, even though he did not deceiving the J and did not have any intention to
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) In light of the following circumstances recognized by the lower court by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant, not the P, but the other party to the transaction of swine in the LAF office on April 17, 2013, is sufficiently recognized as the defrauded of D and the criminal intent of the Defendant.
① On April 17, 2013, D and P consistently make a statement from an investigative agency to the lower court to the effect that a person who supplies pigs to the Defendant is not P, but D.
② In the transaction list in which the defendant received at the time of the above transaction, the representative director of the F shall be recorded as D.
③ At the time of the above transaction, the Defendant issued D the check of payment and the check of number of shares.
④ After transferring the F to D in the court of the court below, P made a transaction with the Defendant in the name of P, not the F in the name of the LAB, and made a statement that the transaction amount was paid in cash or transferred to the account in the name of P, even at the time of receiving the transaction amount.
(5) On April 24, 2013, immediately after the above transaction, the Defendant shall operate a credit rating company with KRW 5 million.