특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (A) NSaving Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim bank”) did not determine whether to grant a loan on the basis of the credit and property status of the amusement business establishment, size of amusement business establishment, degree of lease deposit, etc., or not based on the documents related to the pre-paid payment submitted by the Defendants. Thus, there is no causation between the Defendants’ deception and the loan
(B) Since Defendant A determined that he/she could fully repay the loan with the revenue of “I”, it cannot be deemed that he/she had the intent to obtain fraud.
(2) Considering the circumstances surrounding the instant assertion of unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. In light of the fact that Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is asserted (A) the victim bank received documents related to prepaid money in order to use it as reference material for collecting claims, there is no causation between the Defendants’ deception and the loan.
(B) It cannot be deemed that Defendant B had the intent to commit a crime by fraud.
(2) Considering the fact that Defendant B did not participate in the loan led by Defendant B, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendants guilty of the instant charges on the following grounds: (a) the victim bank appears to have not made a loan if it had known the fact that the prepaid payment-related documents submitted by the Defendants were false; (b) there was causation between the Defendants’ deception and the loan; and (c) the Defendants actively submitted false prepaid payment-related documents to the victim bank to recognize the intent of defrauding the victim as long as they belong to the victim bank.
Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified.