beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
It is true that the price of the material that was delivered with mistake of facts is not paid at the construction site, but because there were many construction works at the time, there is no intention or ability to pay the price, and therefore there is no intention to obtain fraud.
The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.
Judgment
As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that, at the time of the Defendant’s request for the supply of materials to the victimized company, the Defendant was liable for financial obligations as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment, and was urged to pay the existing promissory notes, and the Defendant received a total of KRW 427 million from the development of the same industry and used a total of KRW 427 million,000,000,000,000 excluding labor expenses and expenses, for the settlement of bills issued at the previous construction site. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged, the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment, was aware that there is a possibility that even if materials are supplied from the victimized company, it may not be settled on the settlement date, and it would have concealed them and would have been normally settled.
The following circumstances found by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence by the lower court. In other words, the Defendant asserted that (i) the first investigation agency’s additional construction cost to be paid from the development of the 2,50,000 won, which is the original contractor, was caused by the 2,500,000 won, and that the said additional construction cost was not paid to I, the representative director of the victimized company, but was not paid (Evidence No. 132 of the Record), and that objective evidence or related persons were not paid