logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.04.20 2017노3360
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Defendant A, B, and C and the part of the judgment of the court of second instance against 2017 Gohap 359 respectively.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the first instance judgment of the court below, Defendant A was aware of the facts (Defendant A) No. 1, and Defendant A introduced Defendant B the victim N to Defendant B by deceiving Defendant B, and there was no conspiracy by Defendant A to commit the crime of defraudation against Defendant B, C and the above victim in the order, and there was no deception by Defendant A or Defendant A made personal profits.

B) As to No. 2017 High 283 as indicated in the judgment of the second instance, Defendant A merely delivered the content from them to the victim Z by deceiving AP and AM, but did not have the intention of deception.

In particular, 100 million won out of the 600 million won of the money received from the victim Z is not the fraud that Defendant A borrowed and repaid.

C) As to No. 2017 High 359 as indicated in the judgment of the second instance, Defendant A only received KRW 20 million from the victim T, and there was no intention to obtain it by fraud.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged that Defendant A acquired 90 million won from the above victim.

2) Defendant B made a false statement to the victim N as a custodian of a warehouse for the storage of the former president’s non-funds (the “former president”). However, this was the intent of Defendant C through Defendant C to seek a new right factoring desired by the said victim and receive a fee from Defendant A, which was not the purpose of washing the check as determined by the lower court.

3) Defendant C did not have conspired with Defendant A or B to commit the crime of defraudation of the victim N, and there was no deception or personal benefit.

4) Defendant D received one copy of the KRW 500 million check from the victim C upon the request of the victim C to exchange in cash, and requested the co-defendant E to exchange in cash. Defendant D co-defendant E of the lower court to exchange in cash. Defendant E of the lower court is only KRW 450 million.

arrow