beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.11.29 2018노979

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the actual party to the instant construction contract is not a defendant G, so the defendant cannot be held liable for the crime of fraud.

Even if the defendant is a party to the instant construction contract.

Even if the contract of this case was concluded under the lead of G, a member of the business division for the revitalization of the business, the defendant did not deceiving the victim, and the defendant did not have the intention to defraud the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too severe.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

B. Determination 1) The question of who the party to the contract is the party to the determination as to the assertion that the party is not the party to the contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the party’s intent

The interpretation of expression of intent is to clearly confirm the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expressing intent, and in cases where the parties to the contract prepare in writing a disposal document, it shall reasonably interpret the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expressing intent according to the contents of the written document, regardless of the parties’ internal intent, even though it is not bound by the text used in writing. In such cases, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression of intent should be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4471, Nov. 29, 2012). In other words, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of original judgment, i.e., (a) the contractor of the instant construction contract is a limited company run by the defendant.