logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.06.23 2016노653
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the insurance contracts listed in the attached list of crimes in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "insurance contracts in this case") were collected more than six times, the insurance premium was deposited from the actual insurance contractor, the convenience of the insurance contractor, and the insurance contractor did not obtain the signature of the contractor in the contract, the insurance contract in this case was terminated due to the circumstances of the contractor, the name of the defendant's family in the insurance contract in this case was concluded in consideration of the future of the family, and the ordinary insurance was concluded by soliciting the beneficiary, etc., the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud of relevant legal principles, shall be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime unless the Defendant makes a confession. Since the crime of fraud is established by dolus negligence, the subjective element of the constituent elements of the crime refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is uncertain, and dolusent intention exists.

In order to do so, there is not only awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, but also there is a internal intent to allow the risk of the crime. Whether the actor allowed the possibility of the crime, or not, depends on the statement of the offender, is not dependent on the statement of the offender, and the form of the act and the situation of the act that is externally revealed, etc.

arrow