beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of KRW 700,00) of the lower court is excessively unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. We examine ex officio the case at the trial, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment of this case as follows, and this court permitted the changes in the indictment of this case, so the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.
B. Around March 30, 2011, the revised charges stated that the Defendant would pay the victim in cash within the first five days of each month on credit with the boiler, etc. at the D station in the operation of the Victim C located in Seo-gu, Daegu, Seo-gu.
However, the defendant did not have any special property or income, so even if he was supplied with boiler oil, he did not have any intention or ability to pay the price.
As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, was delivered from March 30, 201 to April 17, 201, an oil boiler, etc. equivalent to KRW 386,500 at the market price from the victim to the victim’s delivery.
3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.
Criminal facts
The above 2-B
same as the entry in the subsection.
Summary of Evidence
The summary of the evidence recognized by this court is as follows: 1. The defendant's oral statement is added to the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, so it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;
1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant obtained the oil in the vehicle from the victim while engaging in the distribution business.