사기
The judgment below
The part of the compensation order shall be reversed, the judgment of the first instance on that part shall be revoked, and the applicant for compensation shall be the applicant for compensation.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The lower court found all of the facts charged in the instant case guilty, and determined that it constituted concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the number of crimes, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. Determination as to compensation order
A. The compensation order under Article 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Promotion of Legal Proceedings”) is a system to ensure the smooth and prompt recovery of victims’ damage by ordering the Defendant to compensate only when the amount of direct property damage suffered by the victim of the criminal act is specified and the scope of the Defendant’s compensation is evident.
According to Article 25 (3) 3 of the Litigation Promotion Act, where the existence or scope of the defendant's liability for compensation is unclear, a compensation order shall not be issued, and in such case, the application for compensation shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 32 (1) of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do9616, Oct. 11, 2013; 2013Do1477, Jan. 29, 2014). (b) The judgment of the first instance cited by the lower court recognized that the defendant acquired the total amount of KRW 46,105 million from the applicant as stated in the facts charged from March 2, 2012 to June 9, 2014.
Accordingly, the first instance court ordered the applicant to pay the amount of KRW 460,1050,000,000 to the defendant, and the lower court maintained it as it is.
However, according to the records, it is evident whether the defendant is liable for the full amount of the compensation that the defendant suffered from the applicant.
There are the following circumstances.
(1) On March 2, 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from the applicant for compensation at interest rate of 2% per month and thereafter, from March 15, 2012 to May 2012.