사기
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: (a) the defendant was found guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the fact, and (b) the defendant was found guilty of the facts charged in light of the following: (a) the defendant was relatively old, and the defendant was relatively old, and the degree of the criminal intent to obtain by deception is weak; (b) the sentence of the court below that sentenced the defendant one year and six months in imprisonment is too excessive, and thus is unfair, in light of the fact that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment, since he did not pay the purchase price of the forest in this case (hereinafter “the forest in this case”) as stated in the judgment below, and he did not receive the registration of transfer of ownership of the forest in this case with intent to obtain by deception from the beginning; and (c) even if not, the defendant is relatively old, and the degree of the criminal intent to obtain by deception is weak.
2. Determination
A. As to the mistake of facts, the existence of the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history before and after the crime, environment, content of the crime, process of transaction, relationship with the victim, unless the defendant makes a confession. The criminal intent is not a conclusive intention but a dolusent intention.
Therefore, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant was the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below and received the registration of transfer of ownership in the forest of this case from the victim. Meanwhile, the defendant decided to take over the automobile maintenance business site on October 5, 2012, and delegated the right of attracting real estate security to secure funds necessary for the company from the automobile maintenance business lawsuit, and caused V to take over the automobile maintenance business site on April 17, 2013, and the defendant was not able to take over the automobile maintenance business site at the time.