The meaning of disposal in fraud

Since fraud is established by deceiving others, making them omitted in mistake, and inducing them to acquire property and property benefits by inducing their dispositive acts, it means property dispositive act. It requires that the defrauded, subjectively, recognizes the consequences of dispositive act, namely, the dispositive intent, and there is an act that is objectively controlled by such intent.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Jeon Byung-hoon

Daejeon District Court Decision 85No737 delivered on November 23, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

1. We examine the facts of the instant fraud ex officio prior to the judgment in the grounds of appeal.

The facts charged of this case are that the defendant, while holding the first place of business of Samyang Livestock Co., Ltd., he/she was aware that he/she would have obtained the above 30,000 won of the above 40,000 won of the above 40,000 won of the above 70,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 30,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 20,000 won of the above 30,000 won of the above 10,000,000 won of the above 10,000 won of the above 3,000,000 won of the above 7,000,000 won of the above 20,000 won of the above 1,000 won of the above 3,00,000 won of the above 3,00 won of the above 3,000,00 won of the above 3,00.

Thus, it cannot be said that there was an act of disposal as mentioned above, and therefore, the defendant's subsequent act of registering the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the above documents constitutes a crime of fraud, apart from the fact that it constitutes a crime of fraud. Thus, the facts charged in this case shall be deemed not guilty by the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, the court below's finding of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of crime regarding the facts charged in the fraud of this case does not affect the original judgment in the conclusion, although there is an error in the application of the law.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the fabrication of private documents and the uttering thereof.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the defendant prepared a written contract to establish the mortgage of this case under his name with the authority delegated by the above Gangseo-gu, and the records show that the above fact-finding of the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed for lack of grounds. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)