logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.08.30 2018노775
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the victim had intent and ability to pay the construction cost at the time of entering into a subcontract with the victim, but did not pay the construction cost as a result of changes in circumstances that occurred during the construction process. Therefore, there was no intent to commit deception or fraud, and the victim did not complete the construction according to the agreement.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by these evidence, the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts can sufficiently recognize the criminal intent of deception and deception of the Defendant, in light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.

The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

① The Defendant asserts to the effect that the cost required for the instant housing construction project that was contracted by the owner exceeds the agreed construction cost. However, even if such Defendant’s assertion is true, in light of the point at which the Defendant paid the cost necessary for the construction project and the point at which the contract was concluded with the victim, the Defendant was rather demanding the Defendant to change the front part of the rooftop to the interior, and there was no other change in the design, and there was no further change in the design.” The Defendant’s statement to the effect that, upon the completion of the instant housing construction project, it was possible for the owner to receive the additional contract for another housing construction project from the owner of the building, and thus, the Defendant could not have known or predicted the circumstances that the enemy would have occurred in the instant housing construction project at the time of the conclusion of the contract with the victim.

arrow