사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
The defendant does not pay the above fine.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal presented an agreement of installment financing and a certificate of personal seal impression under the name of the Defendant and B to the employee of the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and received a loan from the Plaintiff, and thus, among the facts charged in the instant case, the victim was the victim D, but the lower court, considering the victim as the father and father E, declared the Defendant’s exemption from punishment for this part of the facts charged by applying the relative precedent. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine
2. Determination
A. In collusion with the Defendant and B on March 15, 201, the summary of the charge of fraud portion: (a) in the D office located in Suwon-gu Busan, Busan, and (b) in fact, despite the fact that there was no consent from E to receive a loan from E as a vehicle purchase price; (c) as if the above consent was obtained, F had F submit an agreement on installment financing under the name of E and a certificate of personal seal impression to an employee with the victim’s name in the name of D; and (d) in this context, the Defendant received KRW 14.9 million from the victim as a loan equivalent to the vehicle purchase price on
B. The lower court determined that the defrauded’s victim was E in the relationship with the Defendant, and thus applied the relative precedent under Articles 354 and 328(1) of the Criminal Act, and accordingly, sentenced the Defendant to exemption from punishment for this part of the charges.
C. In a case where a person who stolen a deposit passbook owned by the party decision-friendly relationship transfers the balance of deposits in his/her relative name to another financial institution opened in his/her own account by inserting and manipulating the deposit passbook in the cash automatic machine installed in the relevant relative transaction financial institution, the victim due to the crime shall be a relative transaction financial institution at risk of double payment of the amount equivalent to the transferred deposit amount.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2704 Decided March 15, 2007, supra).