beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged even though he did not conceal the victim by deceiving the victim with the intention of defraudation, thereby deceiving the victim with the balance of 30 million won, is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The six-month imprisonment imposed by the court below on the defendant is excessively unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, is to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial power before and after the commission of the crime, the environment, the content of the crime, and the process of transaction performance, unless the Defendant makes a confession, and the crime of fraud is also established by willful negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8781, Jan. 18, 2008). In addition, in a case of fraud the content of which is a taking-off of property, if there is a giving-out of property by deception, it constitutes a crime of fraud by itself, which constitutes
shall not cause any damage to the entire property of the victim.
The establishment of fraud does not affect the establishment of fraud.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances are as follows: (a) the Defendant agreed to pay the Defendant the balance of KRW 38 million, which is the acquisition price of the real estate brokerage office of this case, on August 13, 2009, as stipulated in the contract, as stated in the contract, to pay the balance of KRW 38 million, which is the acquisition price of the real estate brokerage office of this case; and (b) the Defendant did not pay it until six years have passed since it acquired the real estate brokerage office of this case; and (c) even if it was well known that the business situation of the real estate office of this case was good at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the Defendant paid it to the Defendant as business profit that the victim would incur in the future.