beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.14 2019노1285

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the instant case, the defrauded and the victim are G that paid advance payment fees and the dispositive actr is the victim company. The victim is the victim company in the instant case, because the victim and the victim are G that paid advance payment fees and the dispositive actr is the victim company.

The facts charged of this case are the acquisition of advance payment fees for G, not the acquisition of loans to the damaged company.

B. Although the Defendant and the defense counsel indicated in the statement of grounds for appeal the mistake of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles as to deception, they are related to the existence or existence of deception, so they will be tried by mistake of facts or misapprehension

1) The Defendant is the internal director E (name F before the opening of the name; hereinafter “E”) of the victimized company.

(2) The Defendant notified the Defendant of the current business status and financial status of the company at the time, and the future business plan, and notified the Defendant of the current business status of the company operated by the Defendant as a management specialist accurately and proposed to lend the amount equivalent to advance payment fees. Therefore, the Defendant did not deceiving the victimized company. 2) The Defendant could not be deemed to have deceiving the victimized company solely based on the fact that the Defendant was operating the K in charge of the

C. Since the Defendant did not use the money borrowed from the damaged company for repayment of his/her personal debt or K and used the money for the purpose of the business, there is no intention to acquire the money by fraud.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to a dispositive act, the Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part.

In regard to this, the lower court’s determination on the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to disposal act and the non-existence of damages by the victimized company itself, and ① written indictment itself.