beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing) is insufficient to prove that the Defendant was unable to pay transport charges to the victim B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victims”) because the enemy accumulated while engaging in the cargo transport arrangement business, and there is no scope of deceptiveation, and that the amount of damage also reaches KRW 538,354,123.
In particular, the portion calculated on the basis of the tax invoice issued in the amount of damage includes 17,315,756 won, which the defendant should receive, and the victim did not pay 20,821,197 won to the defendant, so the above amount should be excluded from the amount of damage.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and by deceiving the victim with the intention of deception, thereby obtaining property profits equivalent to the transport cost of KRW 538,354,123, without the ability of the Defendant to pay the transport cost.
Even if not, the sentence of the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) In a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent of defraudation, whether the criminal intent of defraudation exists or not, the subjective element of the crime is to prove it by means of an indirect or circumstantial fact that has considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of the object, and in this case, what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial fact that has considerable relevance with the criminal intent should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the connection of the fact by means of the detailed observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule.
On the other hand, as a subjective element of the constituent elements of crime, it refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is expressed as unclear, and it is accepted as it is, and it is also aware of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime in order to have had dolusence.