beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.04.24 2015노369

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and four months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the victim K.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (the part concerning fraud as stated in paragraph (3) of the crime at the time of original adjudication) is that the Defendant received KRW 15 million from the Victim K as activity expenses, but in light of the victim’s original decision and each investigation agency’s statement, it is evident that it is impossible to recognize the Defendant’s deception or fraud, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant of the above facts charged was erroneous and unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment of fraud as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is established by deceiving another person to make a mistake by inducing a dispositive act, and thereby obtaining property or pecuniary profit. Therefore, there should be causation between deception, mistake, and property disposal act. On the other hand, whether a certain act constitutes deception that causes a mistake to another person, and whether there exists causation between such deception and property disposal act should be determined generally and objectively, taking into account the specific circumstances at the time of the act such as the transaction, the other party’s knowledge, character, experience, occupation, etc.

Therefore, in a case where the defendant's act of disposal of the victim's property or the defendant's act inducing such disposal of property was committed under close relation with the failure or performance of any business as the defendant's promotion, the existence of deception or causation cannot be determined simply on the basis of the defendant's financial power or credit status. The relationship between the victim and the defendant, the degree of the victim's awareness and involvement in the business, the details of the victim's act of disposal of property in relation to the business in question, the possibility of success