사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
1. The defendant asserts that a prison term of 6 months imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the court below is too unhutiled and unfair.
2. We also examine the judgment and prosecutor’s improper claims for sentencing.
The amount of fraud of this case reaches approximately KRW 68 million (the defendant acquired G sings from the injured person, and paid approximately KRW 55 million by repaying the injured person's debt, etc., as stated in the judgment below, and thus, the actual amount of damage was claimed to be equivalent to KRW 13 million. However, the defendant at the prosecutor's office, on August 16, 2013, at the time of the exchange contract of this case, determined that the above singsings' operating right was equivalent to KRW 123 million in total, including the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, KRW 30 million, KRW 30 million, KRW 73 million, and KRW 45 million in total, including the obligation of the injured person to pay for alcoholic beverages, etc. to the victim of the singings. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24574, Sep. 5, 2013>
In light of the stated facts, the Defendant finally agreed on the value of the right of operation at KRW 68 million in consideration of the expenses, etc. that need to be additionally paid after acquiring the above singing.
Since it is determined that the actual amount of damage does not exceed KRW 13 million, there is no room to view that there are many circumstances where the nature of the crime of this case and its possibility of criticism can not be easily seen, such as the fact that there is no recovery of a considerable portion of damage, and that the defendant used active deception methods, such as the fact that the completion inspection of the H building as stated in the judgment of the court below is completed after 7 days from the time of the exchange contract of this case.
However, it does not seem that the defendant concluded the exchange contract of this case with the knowledge that he could not transfer the ownership of H building 601 as stated in the judgment below, and the defendant deposited KRW 13.5 million in the future of the victim in the trial.