beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In relation to L of a policyholder of a misunderstanding insurance, L was willing and capable of concluding an insurance contract at the time of the insurance contract, and the insurance premium was paid on behalf of the Defendant for the repayment of the Defendant’s obligation to pay to L, so there is no fact that the Defendant deceivings the victim company with the criminal intent to acquire by deception.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud determination as to a factual mistake, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and process of transaction before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. The criminal intent is sufficient not to have a definitive intent but to have dolusent intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, health care for the instant case, namely, (i) the following circumstances recognized by the court below lawfully adopted and investigated evidence, and (ii) the insurance premiums for the first and second instances of insurance concluded under L under the name of L were fully paid by the Defendant, and (iii) any objective financial material to recognize that the Defendant bears a debt to L is not submitted, and ultimately, the above insurance premiums were fully
② Even if the Defendant was liable for the amount of KRW 7,50,000,000,000,000,000 for maintaining insurance contracts, the Defendant was liable for the insurance premium to maintain the insurance contract, and there was a request or consent of L in the process.
As such, the establishment of fraud is not denied solely on the ground that some debts exist, and ③ the Defendant concluded a false insurance contract concluded under L in the name of L by the prosecution to receive fees.
The facts charged in this part of the indictment are acknowledged, and the confession is made.