beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.11.21 2018노1064

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

All the judgment below is reversed.

Each crime of the judgment of the court of first instance and each crime of the judgment of the court of second instance, and paragraphs 1 and 2-1 (a) of the judgment of the court of second instance.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) committed a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim I (Article 2017 Gohap405 of the lower judgment). The Defendant did not deceiving the victim, and did not have any intent to commit fraud.

① In relation to the facts constituting the crime No. 1, the Defendant borrowed money to the victim for the purpose of “F acquisition fund and operation fund of D (hereinafter “D”) operated by the Defendant for the purpose of real estate sale and development project,” not for “F acquisition fund and the Defendant’s operation fund of D (hereinafter “D”) for the purpose of acquiring KRW 36,055 square meters of land E in the case of a third party owned by F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”).

In addition, at the request of the victim, the Defendant set up a right to collateral security on the 1.8 billion won and the 4 lots other than the 1.8 billion won, Chungcheongbuk-si, BI, and the 1.8 billion won (hereinafter “the instant spring land”).

② In relation to the criminal facts No. 2, the Defendant did not say that “the Defendant transferred the first priority right to the third party land” to the victim. At the victim’s request, the Defendant registered the right to request the transfer of ownership as to the third party land 30/100 of the third party land shares in the investment contract concluded with respect to the said land.

③ With regard to the facts constituting the crime No. 3, the Defendant: (a) requested N andO to repay money more than KRW 300,000,000,000 to the second-class mortgagee of the land in question; and (b) did not inevitably transfer the second-class collateral to the victim; (c) pursuant to the payment agreement, the Defendant created provisional registration as to KRW 30/100 of the share of the third-class land in question to the victim.

B) Fraud against the victim Q Q (the lower judgment of the first instance, 2017 Gohap 867).