Requirements for establishment of fraud

Since fraud is established by deceiving others, making them omitted into mistake, and making them take property gains from the other party by causing them to make a disposition of property in mistake, it is established by making them take property gains from the other party. Therefore, if there is a intention to take property gains by deceiving others, and there is a causal relationship between such deception, mistake by the other party, and disposal of property, the elements of fraud are satisfied.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor (Defendants)

Seoul High Court Decision 85No2776 delivered on November 27, 1985

The part on fraud against Defendant 2 among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All of the Prosecutor’s appeals against Defendant 1 and the remaining appeals against Defendant 1 are dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the defendants were aware of the facts charged against the non-indicted 1's husband's non-indicted 1's act of acquiring money from the non-indicted 1's husband's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's co-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's co-indicted 1's co-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's co-indicted 1's co-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's co-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2'

However, even according to the decision of the court below, Defendant 2 sought money from the co-defendants of the court below with the husband's consent from the co-defendants of the court below, but the co-defendants of the court below intended to borrow money from the victim's in the name of the husband with the husband's consent, but they did not lend money in the name of the borrower because there are many suspicions that the borrower would not face with the borrower, and upon the request of the borrower, he left the loan site with the husband's movement. Defendant 2 did not accept it with the knowledge that the co-defendants of the court below knew that he would have obtained the husband's consent with the truth, and he did not accept it with the awareness that the co-defendants of the court below did not accept it with the husband's consent, and the fact that Defendant 2 borrowed money from the victim who believed that he

However, the crime of fraud is established by deceiving others, making them omitted in mistake, making them take property gains from the other party by making them dispose of property by causing them to make a mistake, and in this case, there is a intention to take property gains by deceiving others to the offender, and there is a causal relationship between the deception and the mistake of the other party, and the act of disposal of property, the elements of the crime of fraud are satisfied.

In addition, in light of the above facts, Defendant 2 borrowed money from the victim who did not borrow money from the borrower or the victim who did not borrow money from the borrower as her husband even though she is not the husband of the co-defendant of the original trial. As such, Defendant 2, as long as Defendant 2 did not act as her husband even though she is not the husband of the co-defendant of the original trial, there was a awareness that Defendant 2 was the purpose of deceiving the victim as her husband. In addition, Defendant 2 did not lend money if Defendant 2 knew that she was not the husband of the co-defendant of the original trial, and the victim did not lend money if she had known that she was not the husband of the co-defendant of the original trial, the act of Defendant 2 was due to the above deception by Defendant 2, which led to the

Even if the co-defendants of the court below committed the above act with the knowledge of the husband's consent to the above monetary rent, as the defendant 2 suffered a change in his husband, it cannot be said that at least the defendant 2 did not have the awareness of the purpose of deceiving the victim as long as he had done his husband's behavior in the court below.

Thus, although there is a causal relationship between Defendant 2’s deception and the grant of money to the victim of this case, it should be deemed that Defendant 2 had the criminal intent, Defendant 2’s so-called crime of fraud is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle of fraud.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below regarding fraud against Defendant 2 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 1 and the remaining appeals against Defendant 2 are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)