beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Defendant
A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts does not have deceiving the victim of the facts charged in the case of 2018 Godan6616, and there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation of borrowed money as to the facts charged in the case of 2018 Godan721.
(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
C. Each of the above types of punishment by the prosecutor is too uncomparably unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. Defendant A (1) The above Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts by Defendant A had the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in the original trial, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the above Defendant’s assertion and its decision.
In addition to the grounds stated by the court below, the judgment of the court below that rejected the above defendant's assertion is just, and the above defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.
① If F wishes to be transferred the instant created project from G, the transfer proceeds of at least 15 billion won shall be required. However, F did not have the ability to normally perform the instant created project until the victim transferred the amount of KRW 200 million to the corporate account of F on April 20, 2015 with the introduction of the said Defendant.
② The representative of G stated that F did not pay the above transfer price at all, and that F destroyed the transfer contract, and that the instant development project license was ultimately revoked.
③ The Defendant and B stated that a loan would soon be a sexual intercourse with the victim. However, the conditional promise issued by F from a financial company after the lapse of a reasonable time from the Plaintiff is not legally binding, as well as that it stipulated that F should secure ownership source of the project site (area: 756,560 square meters) due to loan conditions, and thus, it is highly likely that the loan will be completed.