특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The judgment below
The guilty part (including the acquittal part of the reason) shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.
. Prosecutors;
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant (the petition of appeal submitted by the Defendant, in addition to unfair sentencing, states that the Defendant appealed from mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the statement of grounds for appeal filed by September 11, 2019. The Defendant explicitly withdraws the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in the statement of grounds for appeal filed by September 11, 2019, and clearly expresses that the said assertion should be withdrawn even during the first trial of the trial, and all of the charges pronounced by the lower court (three years of imprisonment) that the lower court
B. Prosecutor 1) The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), among the fact that there was a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), AD used the leased vehicle only for six months, and intended to transfer the leased vehicle to a person designated by the Defendant. Since the Defendant was planning to take over it without permission and dispose of it, it should be deemed that the Defendant committed deception against the victim G as to this part of the lease contract, and as long as the crime of fraud was established by taking delivery of the leased vehicle from the victim G, AD actually operated the said vehicle.
It is nothing more than a situation unrelated to the gender of fraud to pay rent normally.
Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that AD operated an actual vehicle. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misconception of facts.
B) Each fraud against the nominal owner of the lease contract (this part of the judgment of the court below was acquitted by the Defendant, who borrowed the name of the lessee from the victims, to a third party within three months from the lending of the name in concluding the lease contract, and the said victims believed this.