In the case of fraud, if some of the price has been paid, whether the amount obtained by fraud is the difference after deducting the price obtained by fraud.

In a crime of fraud the content of which is the taking-off of property, if there is a delivery of property by deception, it itself constitutes a crime of fraud by infringing on the property of the victim, and even if considerable consideration has been paid or no damage has occurred to the whole property of the victim, the crime of fraud has no effect on the establishment of the crime of fraud. Therefore, even if such consideration has been partially paid in a crime of fraud, the acquired amount is not the difference between the value of the property given by deception and the value

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 454, Jun. 22, 1982) (Law No. 1991, Jan. 1831, 199)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 94No2707 delivered on December 14, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

25 days of detention after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below found the defendant guilty of each crime against the defendant by deceiving each victim on three occasions as stated in the judgment and by deceiving each victim, and comparing it with the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is reasonable, and there is no error of law by misconception of the facts, such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

In addition, in the case of fraud involving taking advantage of property, if there is a delivery of property due to deception, it constitutes a crime of fraud by itself, which infringes on the property of the victim, and even if there was considerable consideration or there was no damage to the whole property of the victim, the crime of fraud does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud. Therefore, even in the case of partial payment of the consideration, the amount obtained by deception is not the difference between the value of the property given from the victim and the value of the property, but the property received. Therefore, the court below did not deduct the amount obtained by the defendant with regard to the forest in the case of this case from the amount received from the victim that the defendant received, the amount obtained by the defendant is the amount corresponding to the forest where the registration of transfer of ownership of the victim has been completed

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)