(a) The cooking of evidence in cases where the same person's statement at the prosecutor's office is different from that at court;

B. Whether the actual loss of the other party constitutes a constituent element of fraud

A. The preparation of evidence and the fact-finding belong to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless they violate the rules of evidence, and there is no rule that the same person's testimony and testimony in the prosecutor's office are different from those in the court. Therefore, even if the facts of the crime are acknowledged by reliance on the testimony in the same person's court and the statements in other prosecutor's office, they belong to free evaluation of evidence so long as they are not illegally stated.

B. Fraud is established by deceiving another person to receive property or acquiring pecuniary benefits from the defective intent resulting from deception. Here, deception refers to active and passive acts that have to observe each other in property transaction widely, and the essence of fraud is to acquire property or pecuniary benefits from deception, thereby infringing on the other party’s property, and thus, it does not require that the other party actually suffers loss.

A. Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Do1547 delivered on September 23, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 82Do3139 delivered on February 22, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 85Do490 delivered on November 26, 1985

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yang Sung-soo

Chuncheon District Court Decision 88No57 delivered on March 24, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel:

(1) According to the evidence cited by the court of first instance that the court below maintained, the defendant obtained seals by borrowing 2,00,000 won from the final hospital, soldiers, etc., which he borrowed 2,00,000 won from the court of first instance, and obtained them by forging each joint and several surety under the name of the bank, and submitted the bank's explanation, and made them believe that he is a true joint and several surety, and borrowed 3,00,000 won from the bank that believed that he is a true and several surety. Thus, the evidence preparation and fact-finding belong to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless they violate the rules of evidence, and there is no rule of law that the court of first instance maintained the court below should believe that the testimony of the same person in the prosecutor's office and testimony in the court of the same person are different from that in the prosecutor's office, and that it constitutes an unlawful evidence 16,000 won which is not a matter of law but a free evaluation of evidence 184,000 won.

(2) Fraud is established by deceiving another person and acquiring property or pecuniary benefits from the defective intent resulting from deception, and deception as a requirement for fraud refers to active and passive act that is widely contrary to each other in property transaction, and the essence of fraud is to acquire property or pecuniary benefits from deception and thereby constitutes an infringement on the other party's property, and thus, it does not require that the other party actually suffers loss (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do3139, Feb. 22, 1983; 85Do490, Nov. 26, 1985). In this case, the judgment below maintained the opinion of the court of first instance that the Defendant committed fraud by deceiving the bank (employee) under the name of the above final source and the former sick name, thereby deceiving it as if it were a genuine joint and several surety, and by inducing it to lend the above money under the name of the said bank, and thus, it cannot be said that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete deliberation or omission.

In the end, the appeal is dismissed because all arguments are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Byung-hee (Presiding Justice)