Whether it constitutes a crime of fraud to mislead the misunderstanding of a financing bill to be a true bill

In the case of discounting a financing bill, if the other party uses the active means to believe that the bill is not a financing bill, such as preparing and delivering a false certificate that it has been received as a real estate sale price, it shall constitute deception in fraud. Whether the bill has been settled last or not shall not affect the establishment of fraud.

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (85 High Court Decision 2136)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel is that, even if the defendant had deceptiond as the facts charged in the course of discount of the bill of this case, such deception is an act that does not violate the social rules in practice, and since the bill was settled on the date of payment, it would not constitute fraud as there is no property damage to the other party. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on political act and fraud, thereby admitting the fact that the defendant committed the crime of the judgment, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

However, considering the evidence duly admitted by the court below in light of the records, the above argument is groundless, since the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to fraud or legitimate act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, on the ground that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to fraud or legitimate act, since the defendant's appeal is without merit.

Judges Park Tae-young (Presiding Judge)