beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.04.04 2014노162

사기

Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In light of the fact that there is no fact that the Defendant conspireds with the victim by deceiving the victim D to take money by deceiving the victim, and the victim does not pay the investment money by deception, and the Defendant did not individually use the money invested by the victim and used all the money in accordance with E’s instructions, the lower court did not deem that the Defendant had a criminal intent to commit the crime of defraudation. However, in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criminal intent of defraudation, thereby making the judgment excessively broad the criminal intent of defraudation, and thereby affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Even if the Defendant was found guilty of an unreasonable sentencing sentence, considering all circumstances, the lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. From Jun. 2009, the Defendant, from Jun. 2, 2009, engaged in the development project to develop and sell the land in the Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do and the land in the same Ri G G 44 (hereinafter “instant development project”), and as such, E is responsible for the total amount of the instant development project. The Defendant, while raising money necessary for the instant development project, intended to assist E in various duties of the instant development project, while performing the instant development project. The Defendant, upon completion of the instant development project, intended to divide the profits therefrom.

However, the development project of this case amounts to 44 78,108 square meters of land. The purchase price is up to 5.7 billion won, while the defendant did not have any property or income in his own name, and E did not have any property as a bad credit holder, and the defendant and E merely have a vague indemnity for the development project of this case, and have a specific and feasible plan or method as to how to prepare land purchase funds.