특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The judgment below
This part of the case is reversed, and this part of the case is to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) related to the lending of sale price, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, deeming that there was no
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable.
In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on fraud.
2. Fraudulent parts related to the receipt of deposit for lease;
A. At least two co-offenders who commit a crime in conspiracy do not legally require any form of punishment. There is sufficient contact between the accomplices who intend to commit a crime in direct or indirect manner with implied intent to commit the crime, and even if there is no direct evidence thereof, it may be recognized by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules.
Joint commission of a crime by conspiracy is not premised on the fulfillment of the requirement for the formation of a crime by all accomplices, and it is also possible to cooperate with the accomplices performing the act to strengthen their decision on the act. Whether it is applicable should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding the result of the act, the size of participation in the act, the intent to control the crime, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006, etc.). The deception, which is a requirement for fraud, refers to affirmative or passive act that generally lacks the fiduciary duty and good faith to each other in the transactional relationship with property, and thus, it does not necessarily mean a false representation as to the important part of a juristic act, and it is the basis of the judgment for making an actor perform the act of disposal of property that he wishes by omitting the other party into mistake.