beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In the first trial date of the appellate trial, the Defendant and the defense counsel stated that “the grounds for appeal manifesting the misunderstanding of the facts as to the fraud of the victim D during the grounds for appeal and led to the confession of this part of the crime.”
According to the proposal of J that the Defendant would offer gambling money, the Defendant came to be a casino hotel in the Republic of Korea located in the Philippines. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant placed the chips of 170,000 chips in the table of the said casino game, and only carried out the game.
Therefore, the defendant was unaware of the fact that the victim was a person who lent money to the defendant, and there was no fact that the victim obtained a total sum of 9.6 million Korean Won (240 million Korean Won) in cash directly from the victim as stated in the facts charged.
(b) the sentence 1 that considers unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. (i) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. The criminal intent is sufficient not to have a conclusive intention but to have dolusent intent, and in the civil monetary lending and lending relationship, the criminal intent of defraudation of the borrowed money can not be acknowledged. However, in the event the Defendant borrowed money by pretending that it would have been repaid even though the Defendant did not have a clear intention or would have no ability to repay within the due date of repayment as he/she has promised to borrow, the criminal intent of defraudation may be recognized (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do18139 Decided May 13, 201). The first instance court and the appellate court duly adopted and investigated the evidence as follows.