(a) In cases where the amount of damage caused by deception is paid 11,50,000 won as a part of the price by defraudation by fraud, which is equivalent to 17,950,000 won in the market price; and

(b) If the money obtained by deceit is re-issued to the victim or re-issued the money returned to the victim as aground, the nature of fraud;

A. In the case of disposing of the amount equivalent to KRW 17,950,00 in the market price of 51 Lmond owned by the victim and without any intent to pay the amount, the defendant paid only the amount of KRW 11,50,000 to the victim as if he had no intent to do so, and in the case of receiving the Damond as part of the amount, the defendant paid part of the Damond price is merely a means to obtain Damond money. Therefore, the amount of damage caused by deception is equivalent to the market price of the Damond itself and is not the balance calculated by deducting the amount of the Damond price paid in advance from the market price.

B. If the defendant, as if he had bought the shares of the victims and received money from the victims as if he had sold them, then the crime of fraud is established immediately, and even if the defendant again delivered the money to the victims aground, such an act is merely a means for the following repeated fraud, and even if the defendant had received the money returned to the victims again, it does not affect the nature of the crime of fraud, and it does not affect the nature of the crime of fraud, and it does not affect the receipt of the money by itself, so long as it is a separate fraud.

Article 347 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 1370 decided July 25, 1978 (Article 347-5 (19) of the Criminal Act, No. 594 No. 11030 decided July 25, 197

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court of the first instance (89 High Court Decision 380, 753(Joint Court Decision)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

One hundred fifteen days out of the number of detention days before and after an appeal is filed shall be included in the penalty of the original judgment.

The first point of the defendant's appeal is that the defendant, at the time of original judgment, sold 1,7950,000 won at the market price of 51 Jmond stated in Paragraph 2 "A" to his relatives, etc., and received them in preference to the victim non-indicted 1 as part of the purchase price. Thus, even if the defendant arbitrarily disposed of the Mmond, it cannot be a crime of fraud, and even if it is only 6,450,000 won after deducting the provisional payment, the court below recognized the above act as a crime of fraud, and recognized the total amount of 1,7950,000 won as the damage amount of the above crime. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to fraud, and the second day of the judgment below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the part of the crime of fraud as stated in Paragraph 3 above and the part of the defendant's act of deceiving the victim as a ground of fraud.

Therefore, as to the first and second reasons for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel, according to various evidences duly adopted by the court below, since the defendant did not sell money to the victim non-indicted 1's Damond 51,7950,000 won (which seems to be Damond's mistake, although the court below did not do so) as stated in paragraph 2 of the crime at the time of original trial, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant did not receive money from the above victim as if he had no intention to pay the above Damond 11,50,000,000 won, and the above Damond was delivered to the victim. According to the above facts, even if the defendant did not receive money from the victim by disposing of the above Damond and did not pay the money to the above victim, the defendant did not receive money from each of the above Damond 6's own means of fraud as stated in each of the above Damond 2's frauds and the above Damond's market price.

Next, the following arguments on unfair sentencing are examined: (a) considering the motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime, degree of damage, age, character and conduct, criminal records, intelligence and environment of the Defendant, relationship to victims, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is written and it is not recognized that the said appeal is unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and 115 days out of the detention days before and after the appeal is filed pursuant to Article 57 (1) of the Criminal Act shall be included in the sentence of the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Song Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)