beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant merely belongs to the name bromoer that misleads the Defendant of mistake of facts would also cause a loan, and did not deceiving the victim, nor did he receive the vehicle.
B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (a fine of four million won) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The deception as a requirement for a judgment of fraud as to a mistake of facts refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to comply with each other in property transactional relations, and thus, it is sufficient to say that it does not necessarily require false indication as to the important part of a juristic act, and that it is the basis for judgment for an actor to make a disposition of property that the actor wishes by omitting the other party in mistake. Therefore, in cases where it is recognized that the other party to the transaction would not have been engaged in the transaction if the other party to the transaction would have received a notice of certain circumstances, the person who receives the property is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance in accordance with the principle of trust
Nevertheless, it constitutes a crime of fraud by deceiving the other party by implied disregarding the fact that such notice has not been given.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828 Decided April 9, 2004, etc.). In addition, insofar as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud, is not led to a determination by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial power before and after the crime, the environment, the contents of the crime, the process of performing the transaction, etc., and the crime of fraud is established by willful negligence.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008; 2008Do443, Mar. 27, 2008). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court based on the aforementioned legal doctrine is recognized.