beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, although the defendant was capable of entrusting the victims with the construction work or paying the construction cost and the goods at the time of being supplied with the goods by the victims, but the Corporation was unable to pay the price due to its failure to do so as to do so.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the relevant legal fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime unless the Defendant confessions. In the relation of goods transaction, the establishment of fraud by deceptive means is to be determined by whether the Defendant had the intent or ability to pay the price of goods to the victim as if the Defendant would have attempted to acquire the goods, etc. from the victim by making a false statement as to the payment of the price of goods in spite of the intent or ability to pay the price of goods at the time of the transaction. Thus, it cannot be deemed to constitute a crime of fraud by making it impossible to pay the price of goods in a lump sum due to a change in economic conditions after delivery (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5265, Jan. 24, 2003). However, if the Defendant had a criminal intent to commit the deception at the time of various transactions or agreements with the victims, it constitutes fraud by deceiving.
Even if the payment was made in part or later, it does not affect the establishment of a crime of fraud.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2319 delivered on June 29, 2001). B.
Judgment
Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.