beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.02.12 2015노2402

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)

Text

The judgment below

The guilty part (including innocence) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

(2).

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On February 29, 2012, Defendant 1 purchased KRW 2500,000,000 from February 29, 2012, (i) the Defendant, on the part of the Defendant, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “H”), on February 29, 2012, the Defendant purchased KRW 1,000 tons and 800 tons pressra (hereinafter “the factory of this case”; each “1,00 tons”, “80 tons”, and “the machinery equipment of this case”) with the payment of the down payment only at the time.

Since it was explained, the victim was aware that the mechanical facilities of this case were not owned by E at the time.

Therefore, the Defendant had deceiving the victim about the ownership relationship of the mechanical equipment of this case.

subsection (b) of this section.

② The Defendant was aware of the fact that 1,00 tons of Ra was offered as security by G, the actual operator of H, but it was also aware that 800 tons of Ra were also offered as security.

Therefore, the Defendant deceptioned the victim as to the secured value of the mechanical equipment of this case.

subsection (b) of this section.

③ Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of misunderstanding the facts, thereby deceiving the victim with respect to the ownership of the instant mechanical equipment and the collateral value, thereby deceiving the victim to acquire KRW 250 million from the damaged person.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, acknowledged the part that the Defendant acquired by deceptioning KRW 250 million on February 29, 2012 (Article 3 of the instant facts charged) and the part that acquired KRW 851,208,780 through 10 times from March 2, 2012 to June 26, 2012 (Article 4 of the instant facts charged) as a single crime. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding KRW 4 of the instant facts charged, which were not included in the facts charged, as a single crime. The alteration of the indictment on the charge of deceiving the security value of the instant mechanical equipment.