beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. It is due to the fact that the defendant of mistake of facts failed to pay the construction cost on time to the victim because of the fact that he was arrested separately, and because there was a defect in the victim's construction work, there is no intention to commit fraud against the defendant.
In light of the grounds of appeal submitted by the defendant, only the "unfair form of punishment" was indicated as the grounds of appeal, but the contents also stated misunderstanding of facts, and even during the first trial of the court of first instance, misunderstanding of facts as the grounds of appeal and determination of mistake of facts.
(B) However, the content of the argument shall be determined by arranging to deny the criminal intent of defraudation.
The sentence of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim on May 16, 201, under which: (a) the interior of the instant apartment bond 2 is KRW 26 million for the construction cost; (b) the victim completed the interior of the instant apartment bond 2 from May 17, 201 to May 31 of the same month; and (c) the Defendant did not pay the construction price promised to the victim.
In addition to the above facts, the following facts revealed by the above evidence are as follows, namely, the defendant was a majority of the criminal records of the same kind, and at the present Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment of conviction in the first instance court (Seoul Central District Court 2013No929), and considering the criminal time of the above criminal records or the criminal records of the first instance court decision, it is close to the date of the instant crime that entered into a construction contract with the victim. The defendant did not pay the construction cost or the price of goods to many victims due to the lack of operating funds around this time.