logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.18 2015노4457
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Examining the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) in combination with the following circumstances, the defendant would pay KRW 60 million over three months in one month, without the intention or ability of the defendant to repay.

“Falsely speaking,” and its affiliation is 22 times as investment funds from victims, a list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below (hereinafter referred to as “list of crimes”).

It is recognized that the charge was acquired by receiving KRW 49,959,293, such as the last one.

(1) It is difficult for an aggrieved party to make a statement by specifically memory of detailed matters, such as the time of investment, amount, remittance, etc., in the event that there are many time after the crime as a main agent with no expertise in financial investment or multi-stage sales business, etc.

② The victim consistently stated the main contents of the damage that he/she paid KRW 50,00,00 from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, which led to the confirmation of objective financial transaction details, and made efforts to specify the time, amount, method of remittance, etc. on the basis thereof.

(3) Before July 10, 2007, E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”).

As long as the details of remittance from the account, etc. are clearly confirmed, the fact that the victim stated the time when the victim first invested in the investigative agency on July 10, 2007 is erroneous. 2. Examining the reasoning determined by the lower court and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence examined by the lower court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged.

The judgment of the court below is justified.

① According to the legal statement of N’s witness and the statement by the Defendant, H, and the victim’s investigation agency by the assent, the victim appears to have worked for the Defendant and H as the subordinate seller at the E Salydong Center.

From January 19, 2007 to the same year

6. K (E telegraph) Co., Ltd. and stock company at least seven times until 18.

arrow