logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.10.02 2014노1597
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) although the defendant made a false statement to the victims; (b) there was no intention to commit fraud; and (c) the defendant has actually paid the borrowed money from the victims for a considerable period of time; and therefore, (b) the victims knew of the fact that the defendant was not sufficiently capable of paying the borrowed money to the victims; and (b) the victims knew of the fact that the defendant did not have any interest in the third party who introduced the new bonds to be paid the bonds; and (c) have borrowed money to the victims for an instrument with the interests of the victims, there is no act of disposal by mistake and mistake by the defendant to the victims; and (c) even if the crime of fraud is established against the victims, as long as the defendant used most of the borrowed money from the victims as the principal and interest payment for the victims, only the balance of money obtained by the defendant excluding the money paid to the victims as principal and interest shall be recognized as the amount obtained by the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant asserted that the lower court had the same purport as the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the lower court rejected the said assertion in detail as follows in the “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” column.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by the court below, i.e., the defendant, at the time, is giving rise to the demand of the bond company.

arrow