특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part concerning Defendant A and D and the judgment of second court shall be reversed, respectively.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A did not know that the land No. 10 attached to the judgment of the court of first instance (related to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance) was the real estate that Defendant A provided as security to the victim’s U.S. agricultural cooperative (hereinafter “victim”) for the borrowed loan, and that the land No. 10 attached to the judgment of the court of first instance (related to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance) was the real estate that Defendant A provided as security to the victim’s U.S. agricultural cooperative (hereinafter “victim”) for the borrowed loan without awareness of false high-priced appraisal.
In addition, the appraisal price for Defendant A’s land is more than the normal appraisal price calculated in the court auction procedure with respect to the above land, and it does not constitute high-priced appraisal.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which recognized the false high-priced appraisal of BD land is erroneous in misconception of facts.
(2) In the case of each of the lands listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10 with respect to each of the lands listed in [Attachment 1] No. 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance (related to paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance), each of the lands listed in Attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance constitutes a false high-priced appraisal, but the normal appraisal of each of the above lands exceeds the amount of the secured loan that the victim’s agricultural association received from O.
If so, at the time of applying for a loan with each of the above land as collateral, the appraisal price submitted to the victim OF was higher than the actual purchase price.
Even if the value of the real estate offered as security is sufficient to secure the obligation of the loan, the criminal intent of defraudation shall not be recognized.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.
B) The misapprehension of the legal principle (the first and fourth relevant fraud crimes as indicated in the judgment of the court below are specified in the specific economic crimes.