특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Habitual Fraud) by which the Defendant had no criminal intent or habitually committed the crime of defraudation with respect to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Habitual Fraud), and there was no criminal intent with respect to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc."). Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant
B. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles
A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, to judge the criminal intent of defraudation, is to be determined by comprehensively taking account of objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial power, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transaction before and after the crime unless the defendant confessions, and the criminal intent is sufficient not to be conclusive but to do so (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). In addition to the circumstances stated in the judgment of the court below properly in the process of the judgment of this case, considering the following circumstances and facts recognized by the evidence duly adopted by the court below in light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as having the criminal intent of defraudation is acceptable, and there is no error as argued by the defendant.
Therefore, the above part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
① At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was aware that she would have suffered a big loss from her gender when investing in stocks, gifts, etc., and C was not an exception, and the Defendant actually, around February 9, 2010, constitutes an dynamic securities account in the name of AI, a part of which is 200 million won of retirement pay.