특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant and the judgment of the court below against Defendant No. 2 shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be sentenced to six years of imprisonment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1’s assertion of mistake of fact (as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud in the judgment of the first instance judgment), the Defendant borrowed 6 billion won from the victim M to the amount of capital increase for the acquisition of the Odeposit Bank, on the ground that AC and Z borrowed 6 billion won as the amount of capital increase for the capital increase for the acquisition of the O Savings Bank, and it did not borrow money by deceiving the victim that N took over the O Savings Bank or was in short of land at the time of the above borrowing. The Defendant was sufficiently capable of paying the amount at the time of the above borrowing, and the above borrowed money was the AX corporation (hereinafter “AX”) with the victim’s permission in order to raise
(2) The first instance court determined otherwise and convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, and thus, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The first instance court’s judgment on the allegation of unfair sentencing (the first instance court’s imprisonment with prison labor for six years, and the second instance court’s imprisonment with prison labor for one year) is too unreasonable.
B. A prosecutor (as to the judgment of the court below of first instance), there is a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the fraud against the victim K, and the ruptures in which the victim K was admitted is merely the so-called old fraternity that most of the fraternitys did not actually join the fraternity or that is merely the person who did not pay the fraternitys, and thus, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the fraternitys to the victim, so it can be recognized that the criminal intent of fraud can be recognized. In addition, the two ruptures in which the victim joined AK guaranteed the payment of the fraternitys in other old accounts
No. 1. There is no basis to deem that the victim had taken over the above two units while knowing such circumstances.