사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
An application for remedy by an applicant for remedy shall be dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal shall be examined to the extent that the defendant's defense counsel supplements the grounds for appeal as to the contents asserted in the supplementary appellate brief dated June 18, 2020, which were submitted after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal.
On August 12, 2020, the summary of the pleadings submitted by the Defendant’s defense counsel stated that “all of the facts charged in the instant case recognize the fraud of the victim D.” However, the Defendant and the defense counsel did not explicitly withdraw the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles concerning this part of the facts charged, and the content of the relevant part of the above summary of the pleadings is to maintain most of the allegation of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. As such, the argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles
Of the seven machinery that the Defendant sold to the victim D by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (hereinafter “instant machinery”), the establishment of security was made only for the V-MT 2 machinery, and the cNC 2 machinery was established later, but the cNC 2 machinery was established later. However, there was no obstacle in acquiring ownership due to the cancellation of all of the establishment of security prior to the submission of the written complaint by the said victim. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the said victim suffered substantial damage.
Even if this is not so, three machinery among the instant machinery (H-CT 1, TAPTS M/C1, AUTS SPRAY WHING M/C1, are not subject to fraud, so the sales price for the said machinery should be excluded from the amount of fraud damage.
The defendant received KRW 480 million from the victim K, not the loan, but the balance calculated by subtracting the price for the scrap metal actually delivered from the advance for the scrap metal transaction.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles
A. Regarding the fraud crime against the victim D