beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case even though the defendant did not have a criminal intent to defraud the facts, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud as to the assertion of mistake of facts, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history, environment, details of the crime, and process of transaction before and after the crime, unless the defendant is led to his confession. Since the crime of fraud is established by dolusorous intentional negligence, it refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime of negligence is uncertain as a subjective constituent element of the constituent element of the crime, and it is acceptable as it refers to the case where
In order to determine the possibility of the occurrence of a crime, not only has the awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, but also there is an internal intent to accept the risk of the crime. Furthermore, it is not dependent on the statement of the offender whether the offender was aware of the possibility of the crime, but also on the basis of specific circumstances, such as the form of the act performed outside and the situation of the act, etc., it is necessary to confirm the psychological condition from the offender’s standpoint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1214, Feb. 26, 2009). The court below duly adopted and investigated the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, namely, (i) the Defendant explained from the damaged person as operating funds of the event or business funds of the representative of the executor’s company with respect to the use of the borrowed money.
However, the victim is consistently against the execution company from the investigative agency to the court of original trial.