beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Reasons for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (each crime against the victim C and E) did not deceiving the victims at the time of borrowing each of the money as stated in the judgment below from the victim C and E in relation to the 2007 Highest 2017 Highest 2007 Highest.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant on a different premise is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The relevant legal doctrine is established by deceiving others to put them into mistake and inducing a dispositive act, thereby obtaining property or pecuniary benefits, and there is a relation between deception, mistake, and property disposal act.
On the other hand, whether a certain act constitutes a deception that causes mistake to another person, and whether such deception and property disposal act are related to the other party should be determined generally and objectively by taking into account the transactional situation, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, and other specific circumstances at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Do1872, Mar. 8, 198; 2013Do969, Feb. 27, 2014). Moreover, insofar as the defendant does not make a confession, the criminal intent of fraud, which is a constituent element of fraud, should be determined by taking into account such objective circumstances as the defendant’s financial history before and after the crime, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction, etc. In a case where the other party did not respond to the preparation of the fund that was borrowed in borrowing money from another person, if the other party was notified of the fact that it was contrary to the method of performing the borrowed money, the crime of fraud is established.