beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.01.14 2015노3427

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding ① In the case of the remainder of the charges except the No. 1 of the annexed crime list among the charges of this case, the defendant had the intent and ability to pay each of the charges at the time when he received the money or acquired the pecuniary benefits, and the victim also lent the above money by fully considering the defendant's ability to repay the charges at the time. ② The amount of the annexed crime No. 1 of the annexed crime list No. 1 of the above charges brought about K's husband F regardless of the defendant. However, the judgment of the court below convicts all of the charges of this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts is a requirement for fraud. The deception as a requirement for fraud means active or passive act that causes mistake to another person, which generally lacks good faith and good faith to observe each other in the transactional relationship with property. It does not necessarily require that it constitutes an important part of a juristic act. It is sufficient for the other party to conduct an individual disposal act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do3631, Sept. 26, 2013; 2008Do10519, Jan. 30, 2009). The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective element for fraud, is a subjective element for fraud, so long as the defendant does not confession, it is sufficient to determine the criminal intention by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the financial ability of the defendant before and after the crime, environment, details of the crime, process of transaction, etc., but it is sufficient that the criminal intent is not conclusive, but is sufficiently sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant has not performed his/her contractual obligation or contractual obligation within the date of borrowing.