beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Defendant
The court below found the defendant guilty even though the defendant did not have the intent to obtain fraud at the time of purchasing the rice in this case by mistake, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact.
The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
The punishment sentenced by the court below by the public prosecutor is too uneasible.
As long as the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud in the judgment related to the determination of the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, is not the confession of the defendant, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, contents of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime. Since the criminal intent is also established by dolusisisis. The subjective constituent element of the constituent element of the crime refers to the case where dolusisising the possibility of occurrence of the crime as uncertain and permitting it. The possibility of occurrence of the crime is recognized, as well as the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime, and further, the intention of the deliberation to allow the risk of occurrence of the crime is required. Whether the actor permits the possibility of occurrence of the crime is not dependent on the statement of the offender, but on the basis of the specific circumstances such as the external form of the act and the situation of the act, it shall be confirmed from the perspective of the offender.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8781 Decided January 18, 2008, etc.). In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination that the crime of defraudation of the Defendant is recognized is justifiable. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.
(b) the injured party.