특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The judgment below
The part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A and B
A. As to the grounds for appeal by Defendant A as to the above Defendants’ violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “the Aggravated Punishment Act”), the lower court found Defendant A guilty of the violation of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “the Aggravated Punishment Act”), on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, the lower court acknowledged that Defendant A, as if Defendant A did not have intent or ability to implement the terms and conditions of a loan, deceiving the J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) of the victim as if he had such intent or ability, thereby guaranteeing the victim’s pecuniary advantage equivalent to KRW 25 billion,
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the said determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation contrary to logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of presumption of innocence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on deception in fraud.
2) On the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, the lower court found Defendant B guilty of the violation of the Act of the Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) among the facts charged against Defendant B, on the grounds that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to commit the instant crime of violating the Specific Economic Crimes Act (Fraud).
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence by violating logical and empirical rules, or by violating the principle