특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
1. The remainder of the judgment of the court below, excluding the dismissed application for compensation order, shall be reversed.
2. The defendant.
The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant: The defense counsel's written opinion, etc. submitted after the lapse of the submission period of the written grounds for appeal shall be determined to the extent that it supplements the grounds for appeal specified in the reasons for appeal. The grounds for appeal are examined as follows: (a) the fraud against the victim F, C, and L, which is erroneous in the facts of fact, and misjudgments the sentencing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017 High 392, Jan. 1, 2017 High 406 High
In light of the terms and conditions of each agreement with the victim F, C, and L, the victims knew that the Defendant was to use the money received as money for gambling or money invested.
As such, the defendant does not deceiving his use.
In addition, even though the above victims were sufficiently capable of paying the principal at the time of borrowing the money from the victims, the principal was not repaid in the light of the funds incurred thereafter, so there is no deception as to the ability and intention of changing the amount.
The Defendant committed fraud against the victim H (as indicated in the Decision 2017 Gohap392, the part b. of the 2017 Gohap392 case) with sufficient means to repay the money from the victim H at the time of borrowing the money from the victim H. However, L and C were unable to repay the borrowed money due to the Defendant’s failure to enforce compulsory execution against the Defendant’s unknown point, contrary to prior agreement. Thus, the Defendant did not deceiving the Defendant with regard to its legal capacity and intent.
The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
In the trial of the court, the prosecutor of the judgment of the court below applied for the modification of the bill of amendment to delete the Nos. 1 through 3 of the list of crimes attached to the judgment below while changing the part concerning the crime of the 2017 Gohap 392 case as follows. The object of the judgment was changed by this court's permission.
The Defendant, around October 2015, at the end of the same time, made efforts to make a secondhand car transaction with the victim F in the “F” to the victim F.
여윳돈이 있으면 나한 테 투자금을 빌려줘 라. 그 돈으로...