beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.01.11 2018노849

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Defendant A’s representative director I, contracting officer J, and employees of the contracting officer P and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) of the Victim G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”), Defendant A, the F representative director, was aware of the fact that Defendant A, who was the victim’s employee, had obtained approval for the sale of the victim Co., Ltd. in D107, and had not obtained approval for the sale of the victim Co., Ltd., Ltd., (hereinafter “E”), he could sufficiently recognize the fact of deceiving the victim Co.,

In addition, Defendant A refused to receive “the official document related to D salesroom occupants of the victim company” from E on February 11, 2015, and Defendant A committed deception, including the circumstance that, at the time, F, who did not pay the remainder of KRW 2.7 billion out of KRW 3 billion of the deposit deposit, could not continue to engage in the rental business in D, if the said balance is not paid, it could not continue to engage in the rental business in D, etc.

In addition, the victim company believed the horses of Defendant A that would be approved as E, and concluded a lease contract between the F and the F for the lease of D 107 area DD, KRW 500 million, and the remainder 900 million (hereinafter “instant contract”) and paid the down payment KRW 500 million. Therefore, the causal relationship between the deception and the acquisition of property is recognized.

Defendant

In light of the circumstances that A used the said money to repay the debt of L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) which is the parent company of F at will without immediately returning the said money to the victim company even after having known that E was unable to obtain the approval of D salesroom occupants of the victim company after the conclusion of the instant contract, and that it was impossible to perform the contract for the victim company, Defendant A had the intent to obtain the said money from the victim company.