beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.18 2017노1963

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles are cited as the grounds for appeal. The misapprehension of the legal principles is a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the criminal intent of the defraudation by the court of the original instance, thereby recognizing the criminal intent of defraudation by the defendant. It is close to the assertion

may be filed.

This is also judged together.

1) With regard to the fraud of the victims other than the Y of the victims related to the fraud, the business that obtains profits by making a registration of ownership preservation in the name of the post-registration of the unregistered land ownership preservation project on the wind that would not bring investment funds, would not be paid to the above victims, or recover part of the investment funds, and then dispose of it after making a registration of ownership preservation in the name of the post-registration of the unregistered land ownership preservation project. It is not a crime of defraudation from the beginning, but there was an intention or ability of the defendant to conduct the above business.

In particular, with respect to the fraud of the victims C and H, D did not intervene in the defendant, and D took all of the money received from the victims while D was aware of it in the middle, and D did not intervene.

2) The Defendant did not allow S to forge and use a letter of delegation for the certification of the R’s seal imprint because the Defendant did not request S to issue a certificate of the R’s seal imprint instead of a certificate of the R’s seal imprint.

B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court related to the charge of fraud, the Defendant led to the Defendant to the crime of fraud against the victims excluding victims Y, as stated in the lower judgment, under the pretext of working expenses for the registration of preservation of ownership of unregistered land.