logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.11.14 2013노2786
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed fraud against the Defendant on a different premise, inasmuch as the Defendant believed only the horses of vehicle experts F, stating that “the vehicle is not necessarily required to replace” and sold vehicles to the victim, and there is no problem in operating the instant vehicle, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed fraud. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant recognized fraud on a different premise, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the Defendant denies the criminal intent of defraudation of facts, the facts constituting the subjective element of such crime ought to be proven by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of an object. In this case, what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance with the criminal intent should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts based on the close observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule.

(1) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court’s determination that the Defendants were aware of the possibility of occurrence of a crime and that the Defendants were aware of the possibility of occurrence of a crime, and that there was no possibility of occurrence of a crime. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the existence of a crime. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the existence of a crime, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.

Supreme Court Decision 2004Do74 Decided May 14, 2004

arrow