사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant had no criminal intent to obtain the alcohol price at the time of the instant case. Even if it is not a domestic affairs, the punishment of a fine of one million won imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Before determining the grounds for appeal ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of ex officio determination, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment by fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on April 10, 2014, and the above judgment becomes final and conclusive on September 2, 2014 (Seoul Central District Court 2013Da7251, 2014No1465). The crime in the judgment of the court below is in the concurrent relationship between the above crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive and the above concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment is determined after considering the equity in comparison with the case for which judgment has become final and conclusive pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and the mitigation or exemption of the punishment is determined. Thus,
However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to a trial at the court, and this is examined.
3. A crime of fraud may be established even with the intention to obtain fraud, which permits the possibility of the occurrence of a crime against the assertion of mistake of facts, by expressing that the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is uncertain.
In addition, if the defendant denies the criminal intent by fraud, it is inevitable to judge the criminal intention by fraud by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details of the crime and the process of the transaction before and after the crime.
Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that he was not able to pay the credit amount because he was unaware of the credit amount, the Defendant did not pay the credit amount. However, as duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged as follows: (i) the Defendant was provided with alcoholic beverages and liquors on credit four occasions during a period of not more than one month from July 2007 to July 1, 2007 on the ground that he was a neighboring business owner; and (ii) the Defendant was demanded to pay the credit amount by the victim.