beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) there was a debt owed to the Defendant at the time of the conclusion of the instant supply contract; (b) there was a debt owed to the Defendant; (c) there was a debt borrowed from the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the principal of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the principal of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the principal of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the principal of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of the branch of
2. It was possible for the judgment manager to recognize the possibility of default of debt obligations under the Bankruptcy Act;
even if there is a possibility that such a situation may be avoided.
In the event that there was an intention to make efforts to implement a contract, there was an intention to commit fraud.
It should not be concluded (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do18555, Jun. 9, 2016). Whether to recognize fraud against a debtor who has been exempted through a personal bankruptcy or exemption system is required to be more careful judgment in consideration of the fact that the debtor's will to seek economic rehabilitation can be a plal and plal of the debtor's obligation to compensate for damage caused by fraud may be excluded from exemption (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8549, Nov. 29, 2007). In light of the above legal principles, a thorough examination of the evidence of this case is conducted by the court below, based on the determination of evidence as stated in the judgment of the court below, that the defendant was supplied with the main household from the beginning with the intention of the defrauded.
The court below's decision that it is insufficient to recognize is just and acceptable, and there was no new evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in the trial, so the judgment of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.