특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In fact, or misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim as if he were to use the balance under the supply contract for the purchase of the owner of the goods of this case (hereinafter “the first contract”) on July 24, 2006 as customs clearance costs, even though he did not intend to use it as customs clearance costs.
However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of suspended sentence in two years and six months) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) In fact, misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of legal principles with the Defendant and the victim’s contract for the supply of china constitutes a en Primeur and futures trading contract (En Primeur) and the Defendant should have secured the ownership of china by immediately transferring the total amount of the down payment from the damaged party to the local E (e.g., liquor wholesalers).
Article 3 (1) of the First Contract of this case also includes the same contents.
However, since the Defendant received the down payment of the first contract of this case from the injured party without the intention to remit it to local E, the crime of fraud is established against the injured party.
However, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the court below acquitted this part of the facts charged and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B) The act of taking part in the down payment of the first contract of this case and the act of taking part in the down payment under the Jindo Housing Supply Contract (hereinafter “the second contract of this case”) on August 23, 2007 is in the relation of a blanket crime.
Even so, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles that the court below rendered a judgment of acquittal on the facts charged with the second contract of this case in view of the fact that the act of deceitation of each person constitutes a separate crime.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too uncomfortable.
2. Determination: