beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
1. According to the statements of the victim D and F, which correspond to each of the facts charged in this case, the court below found the defendant not guilty of all of the facts charged in this case, even though the defendant did not intend to pay the amount by melting the victims, and could sufficiently recognize the fact that he had by deceiving the victims of the above facts. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Before the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the phrase “at the house of the victim F, Busan Southern-gu E apartment 101-806, the victim F,” in the indictment No. 3 from the trial court to “at the house of the victim F, Busan-gu, Busan-gu E apartment 101-806, with phone call with the victim F,” and since this court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake in the above facts is still subject to a trial by this court within the scope related to the modified facts charged, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.
3. Summary of each of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below
A. The summary of each of the facts charged in the instant case (1) fraud against the victim D (2016 order 1301) The Defendant did not intend to pay the payment even after having received the payment from the victim of the non-commercial damage on the first day of May 2007 from the victim on the first day of May, 2007, and selling the payment to the victim to the customer on the face of the Plaintiff after delivering the imported products to the customer on the face of the Plaintiff.
In the indictment of the case No. 33,150,00 won at the market price on May 10, 2007 from the injured party, the indictment of the case No. 1301 above 201, the victim stated the “22,150,000 won” which was delivered to the defendant on May 10, 2007, but the statement of the cash custody certificate prepared by the defendant on September 4, 2007 (the above case).