beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.10 2020노509

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The Defendant’s fraud against the victim H merely responded to the proposal that the Defendant would make an investment in the F Clean Store operated by the Defendant from H, and there was no deception by deceiving H, and instead, H caused enormous damage to the Defendant by embezzlement of the proceeds by taking advantage of the status as an investor. Nevertheless, the lower court erred in the misapprehension of facts by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the Defendant’s deception by deceiving H. 10 million won. 2) The Defendant acquired money in the name of the W-type machinery for the victim Q, which is neither different from the new goods, by obtaining a sales proposal from the seller to sell W-type (hereinafter “the instant machinery”), and by obtaining a discount of KRW 10 million at the site of Q, thereby making a transaction with KRW 65 million.

In the process, the company received 25 million won as commission from the selling company, and the judgment of the court below that held that the defendant stolen 25 million won from Q by unfusing the sales proceeds. There is an error of misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The deception as a requirement for fraud of the relevant legal doctrine regarding the assertion of mistake of facts refers to any affirmative or passive act that generally assumes the fiduciary duty and sincerity to each other in the transactional relationship. It is not necessarily necessary to make a false representation as to the important part of the juristic act, and it is relevant to the facts that form the basis for the judgment to allow an actor to conduct a disposal of property he/she wishes by omitting the other party into mistake. Whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes a mistake of another person constitutes deception is specific at the time of the transactional situation, other party’s knowledge, experience, occupation, etc.