beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.27 2014노2563

사기

Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by A and C and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1 operated a raw milk sales brokerage company in the Republic of Africa for five years since 2002. Defendant A believed that he/she may bring a large amount of money deposited in the name of London, Two Ba, or Kenya or kept in the form of black dollars, on the ground that he/she believed that he/she could bring into Korea a large amount of money deposited in the name of London, Two Ba, or Kenya or kept in the form of black dollars if he/she was accused of and paid the commission by deceiving his/her personnel and senior public officials, and attorneys-at-law in the international fraud organization carrying out the international fraud organization carrying out the Africa for five years. Defendant A 2) The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (one year and six

B. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts is unreasonable because the sentencing of the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, probation, and community service 180 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. On June 8, 2010, Defendant B accepted a restaurant from the victim H, but it was sufficiently recognized that the victim had no intent and ability to pay KRW 200 million as at the time of receipt of the restaurant, the lower court acquitted Defendant B of the above part of the facts charged. Defendant B also received KRW 15 million as the cost of attracting foreign funds by Defendant A and C in the past. However, Defendant B also received the money from the victim as the cost of attracting foreign funds, Defendant A and C introduced Defendant A and C to “a large person holding a large number of funds overseas,” and prepared a statement of performance as if Defendant C would have paid KRW 200 million to the victim, and jointly processed the crime of obtaining money from Defendant A and C by reporting it to the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the above facts.