beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant was aware of the fact that most of the construction works to cover a considerable amount of costs were carried out, but it did not reach the completion of the treatment and custody by driving under the influence of alcohol, which would have been revoked. Therefore, the Defendant did not have the intention of defraudation.
However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. At the time of committing a crime interfering with the performance of official duties, he was physically and mentally weak at the time of committing a crime.
(c)
The punishment of the court below (the first and second crimes in the judgment of the court below: imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and the second crimes in the judgment of the court below for two months) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant at the lower court’s lower court rendered the same assertion as the grounds for appeal.
In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court had the Defendant had the intention to obtain the defraudation.
Based on the judgment, this part of the facts charged was pronounced guilty.
1. The defendant's punishment N has committed a her birth and has no choice but to have the remainder of the work after having only one million won from the injured party.
The victim stated that the defendant was 30% of the construction work
In full view of the fact that the amount the defendant paid as material cost was only about KRW 720,00,000, the defendant seems to have fulfilled only part of the construction in this case.
② The reason why the termination of the medical care and custody was revoked is that the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of six months of imprisonment with labor for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Northern District Court on October 6, 2016. The above drinking driving is deemed to have been on June 3, 2016, prior to the date of the instant construction contract ( July 8, 2016), and thus, the Defendant was on June 3, 2016.