beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.10.24 2019노679

사기

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (the fraud with respect to the Victim K, 2018 Highest 781), Defendant AA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”)

1) At the request of the Defendant’s co-ordination of the Fund for the Loan of the Fund for the Loan of the Fund for the Loan of the Fund for the Loan of the Fund for the Loan of the Fund for the Loan of the Fund for the Loan of the Fund for the Loan of the Fund.

The introduction of both AA and Q was made by introducing them, and only acting as a intermediary for both A and I to conclude an import agency contract, and there was no fraud by deceiving the victim and by deceiving them as a new purchase price. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding the fact. 2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unfair sentencing (one year and nine months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances can be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in determining the assertion of mistake of facts.

1) The Defendant, Q, and Y established AA immediately before the instant crime for the purpose of importing red rain from Austria. At the time of its establishment, the co-representative director of AA was Y and AC, but according to the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant and Q was not directly in a bad credit standing and became a co-representative of AA, but was in a relationship with the Defendant. 2) According to the import agency agreement entered into between A and I, according to the contents of the import agency agreement entered into between A and I, the Defendant and Q were determined to complete the payment of goods and agency fees to I prior to the release of the imported new rain.

However, AA was in a state of not only the new import price but also the cost of customs clearance and storage, and the Defendant and Q did not take measures to prepare for the increase or decrease in the new price according to the market situation, and secure the imported new products in advance at the place of sale immediately.