사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant of mistake of facts is not only guilty of deceiving the victim by making a false statement, such as the statement in the facts charged of this case, but also did not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 4 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court asserted that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the Defendant stated that “A person who sells goods to the victim is G, not a person who sells goods to G, and there was no warning that the victim would sell the goods as stated in the facts charged; and (ii) the Defendant only prepared a product price statement to the effect that the victim would be responsible for selling the goods at G upon the request of return.” However, the Defendant would put up three underlines when purchasing goods from the victim registered as the seller at the lower court’s time of a large questioning with the victim.
If such three persons are registered, they enter money when they work, and if they are known, they will sell goods and compensate for them.
There is a fact that ‘the fact' was verbally stated.
As such, the first promise was made to sell the goods, and the victim is required to return the goods to him/her, thereby making the product price statement that he/she will be responsible and sold by him/her.
In full view of the fact that “the victim has already promised to sell the goods to the victim at the time of the purchase of the goods,” and that there was no clear selling place at the time when the Defendant promised to sell the goods to the victim, and that the Defendant actually failed to pay the price of the goods to the victim after May 5, 2009, which was stated in the above product payment deadline, even though the Defendant had no intention or ability to pay the price of the goods.