logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.16 2018노3960
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was unaware of the facts in the judgment of the court below and did not have the intention of deceiving or deceiving the victim with regard to the criminal facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction, unless the defendant is led to his confession. Since the crime of fraud is established by willful negligence, the subjective element of the constituent element of the crime refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is uncertain and it is acceptable in light of the subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, and there was willful negligence.

In order to determine the possibility of criminal facts, not only has the awareness of the possibility of criminal facts, but also there has been an internal intent to accept the risk of criminal facts. Whether the offender has accepted the possibility of criminal facts, not depends on the statement of the offender, but also on the general public based on specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act that was externally revealed, etc., the possibility of criminal facts should be assessed from the offender’s standpoint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do881, Jan. 18, 2008; 2007Do1214, Feb. 26, 2009). The court below and the court of first instance recognized the possibility of criminal facts through the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, i., whether the business was carried out in the future between the Korea Development Bank and the Korea Development Bank at issue after the completion of each project.

arrow