beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part of convictions and the part of acquittals against the victim J shall be reversed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In recent years, the Supreme Court held that, in a case where the defrauded did not recognize the meaning or content of a dispositive act in connection with fraud, it is judged that the commission or omission by the defrauded is a property-dispositive act directly causing property loss, and the defrauded perceived such act or omission, it is recognized that the dispositive intent corresponding to the dispositive act in fraud is recognized.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Do1362 Decided February 16, 2017 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Do13362, Feb. 16, 201). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, even if the victims of the instant fraud (abstinence) believe that the Defendant, etc. were to return a mobile phone again, such act constitutes “disposition” in the context of fraud itself, and furthermore, as a matter of course, the said victims have been aware of the said act itself, the “disposition” corresponding thereto is also recognized.
In addition, even in the case of the crime committed each attempted fraud of this case, the defendant et al. committed the act of deception related to the loan brokerage so that the victims would be "dispositive act" as above, so the defendant et al., including the awareness of the act of disposal, is recognized.
Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on all the charges of this part of the facts charged (the primary charges concerning the crime, each fraud committed, and each attempted fraud) to the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts of innocence or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of fraud, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended execution for six months of imprisonment, probation, and community service for 100 hours of probation, confiscation) is too uneasable and unreasonable.
2. The judgment of ex officio is not guilty in the judgment of the court below.