beta
Text
The judgment below
Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.
In this case.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts 1) Since the defrauded had property worth approximately KRW 600 million at the time of financing money, it is not recognized that the Defendant has the intent to commit fraud. 2) The owner of the instant Promissory Notes of embezzlement is not the victim Lasta but the Kastastasta but the Kastastasta, and the promissory Notes of KRW 92,400,000 issued by U actually existed, and there is insufficient evidence that the Defendant used KRW 88,00,000 in cash deposited from the victim Lastastasta
B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion on the ex officio determination due to the changes in the indictment, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to change “victim A” to “victim A” among the charges of embezzlement in Section 2(a) of the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, and since the party members permitted the amendment, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
However, since the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of the court, the following will be examined.
B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the Defendant received money from the victims as stated in the instant fraud charges in the situation where the Defendant had a financial shortage, and the GBBBC and the ZBBC had been in operation, and it has reached the Defendant’s return to Korea after the lapse of 14 years, since it had not passed since 14 years passed since she escaped overseas. Furthermore, in full view of objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, and details of the crime before and after the crime, the Defendant can be found guilty of all the charges of the instant fraud, including the Defendant’s criminal intent to obtain fraud, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.