beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.02.14 2013노2726

사기등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that misunderstanding P made a statement that the Defendant agreed on the termination of the validity of the First Agreement while entering into the Second Agreement, the Defendant returned promissory notes to S in accordance with the Second Agreement and registered as a director of the O Co., Ltd., and the liability for loans under the Second Agreement was extinguished in civil litigation, it is also found guilty of attempted fraud.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and forty hours of community service) is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s assertion of mistake of facts: ① O Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”)

(C) In the area of the Z in the Yellow Sea, the apartment construction project (hereinafter referred to as the “new apartment construction project”) is the project of this case.

(1) On July 11, 2007, the Defendant borrowed KRW 300 million as business funds, and agreed to repay KRW 600 million including KRW 300 million until April 30, 2008. To secure this, the P and Q set up a collateral security right to real estate owned by the representative director P. In order to secure this, the P and Q jointly and severally guaranteed the said borrowed funds. ② On November 6, 2007, theO borrowed KRW 100 million from the Defendant and agreed to repay KRW 200 million by April 30, 2008 (the sum of the agreements on KRW 300 million and KRW 100 million together) (hereinafter referred to as “the agreement”).

(3) On April 14, 2008, the Defendant invested KRW 400 million in the business operating expenses of the instant case when S, a real company owner of O, delivered one promissory note of KRW 300 million in face value to the Defendant, and (400 million in the agreement on April 14, 2008, and the Defendant invested KRW 400 million in the business operating expenses of the instant case. However, theO preferentially pays KRW 400 million in the Defendant’s investment principal when receiving a loan from a financial institution, and distributes KRW 50 million in the business profits after the completion of the instant business. The Defendant is required to serve as a director of theO until the completion of the instant