logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.10.04 2018노1731
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

The judgment below

The guilty part of Defendant A (including the innocent part) and the part against Defendant C, respectively.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) In misunderstanding the legal doctrine, Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes provides that “The amount of profit” refers to “B in light of the legislative intent thereof.” The limit of actual profit the Defendant gained by committing the instant fraud is limited to USD 3,00,000,000,000, which is the amount of credit limit under the purchase credit transaction agreement between Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and the victimized Party E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) or “E”), and thus, Article 3(1)1 of the said Act that applies to the Defendant’s instant fraud where the amount of profit is more than five billion won.

2) The lower court’s sentencing (four years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the background of the instant crime; (b) the amount of substantial damage; and (c) the Defendant’s continuous efforts to recover damage.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (an amount of KRW 50 million) against Defendant C is too unreasonable.

(c)

1) In the case of each bill of lading 3,8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 22, 24, 25, 29-34, and 36 in the case of Defendant A and B’s acquittal, and each bill of lading 4, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 22, 24, 25, 29-34, and 36, the court below, without sufficiently examining whether the bill of lading was forged or not, but without sufficiently examining whether the bill of lading was forged or not, lack of evidence to prove forgery.

In view of the fact that the facts related to the above bill of lading against Defendant A and B were not guilty of the facts charged as to the use of securities and forged or falsified securities. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or failing to deliberate.

2) The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A with regard to the guilty portion of the Defendant A is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination:

arrow