(a)where separate security is provided for the borrowing of money by deception, the nature of fraud;

(b) If a bill is discounted without conviction that it will not be settled on the date of payment, the nature of fraud;

A. As long as a loan of money was made through deception, such as the delivery of forged checks or promissory notes to the victims as if they were true checks or promissory notes, the crime of fraud is established, and the conclusion does not change by providing separate security in borrowing money.

B. A crime of fraud is established if a bill was predicted that the bill will not be settled on the date of payment, or if the bill was discounted without notifying the addressee of such fact, even though there is no conviction that the bill may be paid on the date of payment.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Do3088 delivered on April 26, 1983 (Gong1983,929) b. 84Do1461 delivered on March 12, 1985 (Gong1985,576)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Sung-sung

Seoul High Court Decision 93No208 delivered on April 21, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be 35 days included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

Examining the evidence of the first instance court admitted by the records, there is no violation of the rules of evidence or omission of judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the process of fact-finding of the court below, which is sufficiently recognized.

In addition, as at the time of the original adjudication, insofar as a loan was made by a deceptive act such as the transfer of a check or a promissory note in the name of the non-indicted stock company issued by the defendant to the victims as if it was a genuine check or a promissory note, the crime of fraud is established. It does not change the conclusion by offering separate security in borrowing the money, such as the theory of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do3088 delivered on April 26, 1983), and if a bill was discounted without notifying the addressee of the fact that it would not be settled at the due date or would not be paid at the due date, the crime of fraud is also established (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do1461 delivered on March 12, 1985). It is just in the judgment of the court below to find the defendant guilty of each fraud in the so-called judgment, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do3088 delivered on April 28, 1987).

In addition, examining the evidence of the first instance judgment cited by the record, the court below acknowledged the facts of embezzlement using the above company's operating expenses, etc. at that time, and accepted the measures of embezzlement against the defendant as an executive director of the non-indicted corporation, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit, and the case law cited by the theory of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do889 delivered on December 13, 1983) does not constitute a proper precedent in this case, unlike this case, since the defendant, who was in exclusive charge of accounting affairs such as receipts and disbursements of funds of the above company as executive director of the non-indicted corporation, takes advantage of the defendant's temporary custody of 9,32,00 won in total of the victim's re-type savings deposit funds, other than 9,332,00 won, who is an employee of the above company, as an employee of the non-indicted corporation, and

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

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)