1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person working as C’s home delivery engineer, and the Defendant is a person who delivered C’s home delivery.

B. On April 23, 2018, the Defendant opened his house located in Kimpo-si D apartment E, Kimpo-si, with the Plaintiff’s house delivery, and then abandoned the packing box.

After that, the Defendant made a false statement that “the Defendant did not receive an order” by communicating C’s home distribution company.

C. The Plaintiff, who was contacted through the above door-to-door company, secured CCTV in order to verify the fact that he was delivered, and found the Defendant’s packaging box at the place of separation and removal of garbage.

The defendant was convicted of a fine of KRW 500,000,000 from the Busan District Court Branch around October 4, 2018 due to the crime that the defendant, by the above act, attempted to acquire money by deceiving C selective ship company and attempted to acquire money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 5 and 6, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. We examine the occurrence of the liability for damages, and the fact that the defendant deceivings the Celective Ship Co., Ltd. to which the plaintiff belongs, and thereby, the plaintiff, who was in charge of delivery to the defendant, was placed in the position of liable for the failure to deliver the defendant's home, is as seen earlier. Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the tort caused by the above deception.

B. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the scope of the liability for damages, since the defendant's deception made considerable efforts to confirm whether the plaintiff delivered a door-to-door delivery, and the plaintiff suffered emotional distress in the process, it is reasonable to set consolation money at one million won.

In addition, in order to resolve the instant case, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 320,000 and KRW 300,000,000 and KRW 300,00 for the amount of leave equivalent to 10 days consumed, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is the instant case.