Whether the act of giving money to the financing bill at a discount constitutes a crime of fraud by putting the financing bill at a efluent level.

In discounting a financing bill, taking active measures to find the other party as if the bill was the so-called "refinite bill" that the bill was received as the purchase price is a clear deception, and making the other party mistake the intent and deliver money in the name of discount constitutes a crime of fraud.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-sik

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 85No5120 decided Nov. 11, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant's defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

In discounting a loan bill, taking active measures to make the other party as if the bill was the so-called "refinite bill" that the bill was received as the purchase price is a clear deception, and making the other party mistake the purport and deliver money in the name of discount is the act of fraud.

According to the facts established by the court below, around July 1982, 1982, Gap was automatically located in Yongsan-gu Seoul at the underground space of the building, and presented 22,800,000 won per unit value per 22,800,000 won per unit value of the same-sex corporation's representative director and one promissory note with a face value of 15,000 won per unit value, and it is not owned by the defendant, and therefore, it is hard to see that the above 47,606 square meters per unit value per 15,00 won per unit value per unit was sold to the least number of the above 1,00, and there is no fact that the above 15,606 bill was sold to the above 2,00,000 won, and it is hard to see that the above 10,000 won of the above 2,000 won bill was acquired by the seller and the purchaser and the above 130,000,01.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)