beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the real estate transaction agreement entered into with D by the victim of mistake of facts (hereinafter “the instant real estate transaction agreement”) is an investment contract with “the content to be obtained 1,000 square meters in the case of the completion of the E Industrial Complex Development Project,” and the Defendant did not have intention to commit fraud, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the instant real estate transaction agreement as the sales contract, and thereby finding the guilty of the facts charged.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud, of the relevant legal doctrine, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, insofar as the defendant does not make a confession. Since dolusence as a subjective element of the constituent element of the crime is also established by dolus negligence, it refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is expressed to be uncertain and the possibility of occurrence of the crime is accepted as well as the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime in order to have dolusent intention, and further, the intention of the deliberation to allow the risk of occurrence of the crime is required. Whether the perpetrator permits the possibility of occurrence of the crime should not depend on the statement of the offender, but on the basis of the specific circumstances such as the form of the act and the situation of the act externally expressed, it is necessary to confirm the psychological condition from the perspective of the offender.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do769 Decided April 14, 2011). (2) The Defendant denied the instant facts charged in the lower court’s assertion to the same effect as in the trial.