사기
The remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance, excluding a compensation order, shall be reversed.
The punishment of the accused shall be eight months of imprisonment.
1. The judgment of the court of this case is based on the following facts: (i) mistake of the gist of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding of legal principles (with respect to fraud with respect to each loan borrowed prior to the time of the victims on June 201, 201, the Defendant was not only sufficient to have the ability to repay, but also had the intent to repay, and (ii) there was no intent to actually repay the amount of the money already borrowed during that period; and (iii) there was no intention to commit fraud with respect to each of the aforementioned victims’ money payments for the victim W, N,V, etc.; and (iv) the money that the Defendant received from the above victims as the leading owner was the money by assault and intimidation of the complainants, etc. while the guidance was normally organized and operated, and thus, the Defendant was reversed as a result of the escape of the Defendant due to the assault and intimidation of the complainants from the beginning, and did not receive money from the above victims under the name of the money borrowed).
A. On June 201, 201, with respect to fraud against the victims regarding each borrowed money prior to the police officer, the crime of fraud (1) should be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction performance, unless the Defendant confessions the Defendant. The criminal intent is sufficient, not the conclusive intention, but the willful negligence is sufficient, and the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is uncertain. The willful negligence refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is apparent, and it must be recognized that there is a possibility of the occurrence of the crime, as well as the intention of the deliberation that permits the risk of the crime. Whether the actor permitted the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is based on specific circumstances, such as the form and situation of the act externally expressed, rather than dependent on the statement of the offender.