beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below was just in finding the Defendant guilty of the Defendant’s fraud among the facts charged in the instant case, and there was no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to abuse of public prosecution power.
In addition, examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, it is just for the court below to recognize the defendant's fraud and deception against victim X on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the law of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the intent of the crime of deception in fraud.
However, according to the records, the amount of No. 13 through No. 16 of the annual crime list (6) of the first instance court on the fraud against victim X can be known to be the amount repaid by the defendant to the victim rather than the amount obtained by deceit from the victim. Thus, the court below erred in determining each of the above amounts by fraud.
However, each of the above amounts is merely KRW 900,000,000,000, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending such part, on the ground that it fell under the part of KRW 337,039,90,00, which is the total amount of damage caused by each of the criminal acts committed against the victim X, and each of the criminal acts with substantive competition.
the court below's determination that the court below's determination was affected.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do3404, Aug. 19, 2003; 201Do2150, May 26, 201). In addition, according to the records, a copy of the indictment regarding the fraud against U is not served on the defendant, but was served on the defendant’s state appointed defense counsel, and thereafter, the defendant and the state appointed defense counsel raise any objection on the date of the second trial of the first instance, which took place on September 18, 2012.