logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.02.06 2014노2592
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

The lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of one year and six months, and Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment of six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) Fraud against the victim W was committed, and the Defendant had the intent and ability to implement monthly support arrangements with the victim W at the time of entering into a lease transfer agreement with the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J building (hereinafter “instant building”). As the instant building Nos. 102 and 102-1 were real estate sold to AB and there was no obligation to obtain prior consent from K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) pursuant to the security trust agreement, it cannot be said that there was a deception per se in entering into a lease transfer agreement.

Furthermore, since the victim acquired the right of lease from the defendant and received the right of lease from AB as a security for the claim to return the lease deposit, the victim did not have any property damage.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that it found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B) There is no fact that the Defendant ordered D to forge a private document. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) As to the Defendants, each statement in the investigation agency of misunderstanding of facts in the investigation agency of misunderstanding of facts (not guilty part) and court of original instance is consistent with the content of the statement that “the defendant C and D received a written lease consent at Seongbuk-gu Office” and its credibility is recognized. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts to reject each of the above statements.

Even if Defendant C did not submit a forged lease consent form to a public official belonging to Seongbuk-gu Office, M shall be delivered to M who did not know such circumstance and submitted it to the public official belonging to Seongbuk-gu Office.

arrow