beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.11.12 2014노1404

사기등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As long as it is acknowledged that the defendant knew that the bond business operator would have indicated the terms of the right of pledge on the certificate of pledge on the money borrowed from R prior to issuance of the certificate of deposit balance (the alteration of each private document on July 29, 2009) by mistake of facts (the innocent part) 1) and the defendant knew that the bond business operator would have indicated that he would have indicated the terms of the right of pledge on the certificate of pledge and that he requested R to resolve this, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the judgment of the court below, on the ground that it is recognized that the defendant had ordered the alteration or alteration of the deposit passbook and the certificate of deposit balance on July 29, 2009.

B. Defendant (the mistake of facts and inappropriate sentencing) 1) misunderstanding of facts (the fact-finding, the exercise of each falsified document and the obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means as of August 28, 2009) merely known that the term of pledge on the deposit passbook and the balance certificate as of July 29, 2009 had been resolved smoothly with the bond company and had been deleted normally. Although he did not know that the alteration was made, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the charges. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On July 2009, the summary of the first primary charge is that the Defendant borrowed the amount equivalent to KRW 3 billion from the bond company in the name-free type on the account and deposited in the passbook in F, G, and H name. However, when the bond company established a pledge on the said account so that it could not be used as a document necessary for the establishment of E, the Defendant deleted the wording of the pledge and submitted it to the competent administrative agency.