beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.06.11 2015노27

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the legal principles on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is the Defendant’s Savings Bank (hereinafter “Mao Savings Bank”).

(2) As the Defendant’s profit should be determined within the limit of KRW 4 billion, the amount of profit he acquired by means of revolving loan. Nevertheless, the lower court applied Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes by deeming the amount of profit acquired by the Defendant as KRW 7.53 billion, which is the total amount of loan, as the amount of profit earned by the Defendant, to be KRW 7.53 billion. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on November 13, 2013 as to the forgery of each official document and the uttering of each forged official document, the facts charged that the Defendant forged or falsified each vehicle registration certificate No. 1 or No. 4 of the annexed crime list (2) as indicated in the judgment of the court below on November 13, 2013 (hereinafter “the facts charged in this part”).

The court below's decision that acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine is that if there is a delivery of property due to deception, it constitutes a crime of fraud by itself, thereby infringing on the victim’s property. Therefore, even if considerable consideration was paid or there was no damage to the victim’s entire property, it does not affect the establishment of fraud (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7470, Jan. 25, 2007). Meanwhile, the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes.