beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts did not have the intent to acquire a performance bond from the victim E at the time of receiving the performance bond. 2) The lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts: (a) from the investigative agency to the court of the original trial, the victim B made a statement to the effect that “I, who became aware of the Defendant’s good offices, paid KRW 20 million to I; (b) if the Defendant paid additional money, he issued a payment guarantee certificate on the next day; and (c) the Defendant trusted it and delivered money to the Defendant through J, one’s own debtor J,” and (d) the Defendant asserts that he directly borrowed money from J; (b) however, in the investigative agency and the court of the original instance, the J stated that “B transferred KRW 20 million to the account in the name of the Defendant for the purpose of repaying B upon receipt of B’s instructions, but in full view of the fact that the above statement conforms to B’s statement and is contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the above victim’s money as stated in this part of the facts charged, and determined the lower court’s unjust sentencing against the Defendant.”
2. Determination
A. 1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud, of the relevant legal doctrine, shall 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 transaction before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. The criminal intent is not a conclusive intention, but a willful intentional intention is sufficient (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da28, Feb. 28, 2008).