사기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not notify C of the weight of the instant sold wastes to C as one half of the two pieces, as in the facts charged.
C At C’s request, as the weight of the instant arms included the weight, it was impossible to know the exact weight, and it was merely the fact that the weight was 5.6g by reporting that the weight of the instant arms was 5.6g, and that it was against one money.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty by taking only the statements of the victim without credibility. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant is a person who acts as a divers of bail and became aware of the victim C and the golf club around spring in 2011, and was in close relationship with each other.
On October 201, the Defendant sold the sales wastes to the victim C from the precious metal store operated by the Defendant, Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul DD building 605), and made a false statement that “The Defendant would sell them to the victim C, and the gold weight is two half of which is one half of the half value, and KRW 70,000,000,000, which is one half value.”
However, in fact, the defendant was merely a half of the gold content (14k) with the victim.
Ultimately, the Defendant, as seen above, was accused of the victim and received KRW 700,000 from the victim on October 18, 201 as the purchase price for the sold wastes.
B. According to each evidence in the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the defendant sold the instant asphalt to the victim by selling it and then specifically notified that the weight of the gold was two gold Bans. Since the content of gold in the ordinary precious metal becomes an important factor in determining its value, it constitutes a case where the defendant falsely notified the material facts to the extent that he would be subject to criticism beyond lusation. Thus, the court below acknowledged the defendant's deception against the victim on the ground that it constitutes a case where the specific facts about the material facts in the transaction were falsely notified beyond lusation.