beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.01.20 2016노4404

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the fraud of the victim V among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant had the intention to commit the crime of defraudation from the beginning with respect to the charge of deception (2016 order 2557 part)

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the first crime as stated in the judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for four months and the second to seven crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for one year and eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts (1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime unless the defendant makes a confession, and the crime of fraud is also established by dolusision intention. As the subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, dolusis is a case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is uncertain, and dolusisisous intention exists.

In order to do so, there is not only awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, but also there is an internal intent to allow the risk of the crime. Whether the actor allowed the possibility of the crime, not dependent on the statement of the offender, but also on the general public based on the specific circumstances such as the form of the act and the situation of the act that was externally revealed, etc., the possibility of the crime should be assessed (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do8781, Jan. 18, 2008; 2007Do1214, Feb. 26, 2009, etc.). (2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below's duly adopted and investigated the crime as follows.