특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, the Defendant received a total amount of KRW 1,818,68,200 from H (hereinafter “H”) as stated in the list of offenses listed in the attached Table, and received a total of KRW 1,818,68,200 from H (hereinafter “H”) and did not pay the remainder of KRW 932,243,450. However, the Defendant’s delivery of fishery products was a normal transaction conducted in the course of the fishery product distribution business, not by deceiving the Defendant, but by deceiving the Defendant, and the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to acquire the fishery products by deception.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of fraud or misunderstanding the fact that the court below reported otherwise and found all the facts charged guilty.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) comprehensively based on the evidence at the time of the printing, recognized the situation at the time of the printing; and (b) based on this, the Defendant committed the crime as stated in the judgment with the intention of deceiving I to receive property from H by deceiving H even though the Defendant was supplied with fishery products from H, even though he did not have the intent or ability to pay the price in full;
Based on the judgment of the court below, all of the facts charged are convicted.
B. 1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, of the legal doctrine premised on the premise of the above deliberation, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime unless the Defendant confessions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3515, Dec. 10, 2004). Meanwhile, the establishment of fraud by defraudation in the transaction relationship of goods is determined at the time of transaction.