특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Defendant
All appeals against the defendant A and the prosecutor B are dismissed.
1. The lower court rejected an applicant F’s application for compensation order (in early 453, 2017), and the said case of applying for compensation order becomes immediately final and conclusive on the grounds that an applicant cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing an application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Etc., and thus, the part of dismissing the application for compensation order among the lower judgment is excluded from the scope of the adjudication of this court.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. Defendant A(A) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below that Defendant A(A) had a structure of making profits from the prior settlement service business, which was devised by the Defendant, with the payment of the investment proceeds promised to investors. Since the business entity operating the prior settlement service business actually has a profit-making, Defendant A(A) had a criminal intent to commit deception or fraud by explaining the above business profit structure to the victims and attracting investment funds.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Moreover, the Defendant did not directly deception the victim V and W as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, or ordered B to attract investment funds with the test of the above victims.
Even so, the defendant, as stated in the facts charged in this part, received money from the victims for the purpose of investment funds by deceiving them.
The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.
B) No. 4 of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below, the Defendant fully explained the victim X about the purpose and circumstance of the loan, and the victim X also lent money on the grounds of the victim’s friendship with the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant deceiving X.
shall not be deemed to exist.
In addition, in consideration of the fact that the defendant had been experienced in money transactions with X prior to this, and paid 30 million won out of the borrowed money, there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation by the defendant.
However, the defendant deceivings the victim X as stated in this part of the facts charged.