(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.02.06 2019노245

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.02.06 2019노245

사기등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant provided only a part of the B’s materials to theO to make an appraisal of assets constitutes deception. Since around the end of 2014, E and P requested the return of investment funds because B did not make profits. However, the Defendant did not notify G of the aforementioned facts that constitute an essential part of the transaction.

In addition, G's statement that he/she agreed to pay 4.5 million won is reliable.

Therefore, the defendant's deception is fully recognized.

B. The Defendant, from the beginning, was planning to pay the investment funds to the former shareholders demanding the return of the investment funds by acquiring the investment funds from G, and since G cannot be deemed to have consented to the above Defendant’s plan, the intent of occupational embezzlement is also recognized.

2. Determination

A. We examine fraud.

The court below held that the assessment of asset value of B was conducted by the O employed by G, and there is no evidence to support that there was the Defendant’s deception or interference in the process of evaluating the asset value of B, that the Defendant’s personal share was included in B, B, H, and I shares owned by him, and that the Defendant’s personal share was attributed to B along with G’s investment after G’s investment, and that the Defendant’s personal share was not attributed to B after G’s investment. However, even though the fact that the Defendant and the victim suffered conflict in relation to B’s operation, etc. after the lapse of three months, the process of reversion was not carried out, and that the Defendant and the victim did not intend to belong to B, on the other hand, since the profits of the said personal share were deposited into B, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant did not intend to revert the said personal share to B. The specific reorganization of shares, including new shares, including capital increase, issued by 40,000 won, was carried out under the O’s proposal and the agreement between the Defendant and G.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2018.01.10 2017고단767

-광주지방법원 2021.01.15 2019가단534824

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.01.18 2017고단2112

-서울북부지방법원 2018.10.12 2018고합229