beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.09.19 2016노4356

사기

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant is not aware of the fact that he had the intent and ability to pay the price when he is supplied with the Montreal by H, and thus, he does not have the intent to commit the crime of defraudation.

2) The public prosecutor Defendant, even though he did not have any financial means and did not seek investors, acquired KRW 200 million from C, caused D to do 158 million interior works, and acquired KRW 30 million from E, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence that is unfair (public prosecutor) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Fact-finding 1) The Defendant’s assertion part of the lower court is acknowledged as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant received investments from C and I on July 2012, and operated the bail “G” from around September 2012. The Defendant appears to have no separate funds other than C and I’s investment, ② the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from E, an employee, as operating funds, from November 22, 2012, and KRW 10 million on December 19, 2012, but did not change it. ③ Even according to the Defendant’s statement, I would have made an additional investment around January 2013.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant, at the latest around March 2013, was supplied by H with the Montreal from around March 2013, even though no additional investment was made and had been omitted from the financing shortage, he was aware that the Defendant was unable to pay the price even if it was supplied by H, around March 2013.

Since it is necessary to recognize the criminal intent of defraudation, it can be recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

2) Part C of the Prosecutor’s Claim A) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant, as a person who had a relationship with C C’s East I, shall make an investment in G operation from I.