beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The crime provided for in paragraphs (1) through (6) of the judgment of the defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and two months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant had the intent or ability to perform the design and authorization work at the time of concluding a contract with the victims, and actually promoted the design work for the victims. It is merely a suspension of work due to personal circumstances, such as the aggravation of circulation, etc., and there was no intention to receive the down payment, etc. from the victims. Even if not, the lower court’s sentencing (one year and four million won for imprisonment and four million won for fines) is too unreasonable.
B. The above sentencing of the court below by the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud in determining the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history before and after the crime, environment, details of the crime, process of transaction execution, etc. unless the defendant confessions. The criminal intent is not a conclusive intention, but a willful intention is sufficient.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008; 2008Do1652, May 8, 2008). In other words, the Defendant operated a design office from 2010 to 2010; i.e.,: (a) the Defendant had a large amount of liability due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the service cost, etc. due to outsourcing services; (b) the Defendant had a high gradient in the victims’ forest and field owned by the victims or the possibility of granting authorization or permission for the development project or soil and sand gathering, etc. in a development-restricted area without properly confirming the possibility of granting authorization or permission for the development project, etc.; and (c) the victims believed the Defendant and the Defendant.