beta
Text
The judgment below
The part of fraud is reversed.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of fraud is acquitted.
Reasons
1. An ex officio judgment prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to the fraudulent part among the facts charged in the instant case, which was subject to the judgment of the court below, and the subject of the judgment was changed by notifying the decision to grant permission.
Ultimately, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding fraud cannot be reversed.
However, the prosecutor's assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the portion of giving property in breach of trust, which was not modified, is still subject to the judgment
As to this, the facts charged are determined as follows together with the revised fraud part.
2. Determination on grounds for appeal, etc.
A. (1) Around March 3, 2006, the Defendant presented a false statement of entry and departure necessary for the supply of duty-free oil at the office of the Vindication-gun, Incheon, the Vindication-gun Office, and at the office of the Vindication-gun, the victim, to E in charge of the duty of supplying duty-free oil, and the Defendant, the owner of the vessel, provided a false statement to the effect that D, who is a fishery business, supplied duty-free oil only.
However, the above D could not be supplied with tax-free oil because it was engaged in the excursion ship to transport weather workers and employees of the Korea Communications Corporation, not exclusively used in the fishery business.
The Defendant received tax-free petroleum totaling KRW 38,481 liter, and total market price of KRW 27,128,890 from March 4, 2005 to May 3, 201, including the supply of 90 liters of duty-free oil in the relevant place, from March 4, 2005 to May 3, 201.
(2) (A) Fraud is established by deceiving another person to make a mistake by deceiving him/her, causing his/her / her dispositive act to obtain the delivery of property or pecuniary advantage. As such, there should be causation between deception, mistake, and property disposal act.
Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17512 Decided February 24, 2011