beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.17 2015노4232

사기

Text

1. The judgment of the court below is reversed.

2. The Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) Defendant K did not pay all the amount of KRW 300 million originally promised to make an investment to Defendant A, thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to run the business, and there is no fact that the Defendant deceiving the victim with the intention of defraudation.

2) Defendant B merely provided the instant real estate as security upon Defendant A’s request and did not participate in the process of attracting investment. As such, Defendant B did not deceiving the victim with the intention of defraudation.

B. The lower court’s each sentence against the illegal Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the court below according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendants had the intent to defraud the victim and deceiving the victim as stated in the judgment below.

1) The Defendants used 120,1040,000 won paid by the injured party for the actual business of importing fishery products, not for the actual business of importing fishery products, but for most office rent, personnel expenses, etc.

In addition, the Defendants did not hold a separate business fund or secure investors in addition to the investment funds received from the damaged investors.

In addition, all the Defendants did not have substantial experience in importing fishery products and did not have specific foreign customers.

In light of these Defendants’ behavior and financial situation, there is a strong doubt as to whether they had genuine intent to implement the project, and there is a possibility that at least the possibility of not being able to pay the investment proceeds promised to the victim would not be paid, and it is judged that they had induced the investment proceeds from the victimized person.

2) Real estate provided by the Defendants to the victim as collateral was not owned by the Defendants.

. They.