beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.08 2016노3279

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) regarding fraud, ① in the contract between the Defendant and the victim H, it was important that the Commission products supplied by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant products”) were microfranchis refined, but supply gas was not included in the terms and conditions of the contract.

Therefore, even if the Defendant purchased the instant products from microfran Singapore’s total market, the Defendant said that the instant products were purchased from the victim.

Even if so, it can not be said that the victim was deceiving.

② Upon receipt of a request from K shopping mall, the Defendant sent a written estimate, receipt, and the content of the payment in the name of the total number of microfran Singapore, to the victim, and the victim sent it again to the K shopping mall.

However, on November 28, 2013, K shopping mall notified the product of this case that it cannot be confirmed that the product of this case was a serious product, despite the above materials.

In light of the process of this process, the victim recognized that the product of this case was not purchased in Microf Singapore’s total market from around November 28, 2013 to around December 12, 2013, which entered into a goods supply contract with the defendant at least around November 28, 2013, and thus, the victim exceeded the status of mistake.

Therefore, the victim cannot be said to have paid the amount of goods by deceiving the defendant.

③ A crime of fraud is not established inasmuch as the Defendant and the victim did not incur any loss or benefit therefrom through transactions between the Defendant and the victim.

(2) With respect to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of the falsified Documents, the victim has already known that the instant supply agreement between the Defendant and Singapore Microro (INGM MICO) was forged, and the victim is in the position of accomplice with the Defendant, and thus, the crime of forging private documents or uttering of the falsified Documents is established.