logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.08.21 2014노768
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) ① The Defendant did not state to the victim G that “if 2.3 billion won is invested, BJconsium would sell “right to acquire shares” of an insurance company to be established in the future, not for its own contribution, and appropriate it for its payment.” The Defendant stated that the BJconsium comprised of Co., Ltd. I (hereinafter “I”), AD, and victim G would invest KRW 9 billion, and that the BJconsium provided the content of the assets to the Defendant, and thus, the BJconsium did not have the ability to invest the said amount.

In addition, if the BJ consortium faithfully implemented investment as agreed upon, it would have established the Internet life insurance company.

② The reason why Q Q did not remit the down payment to investments was that the R entitled to receive the money failed to request the remittance within the time limit due to its own circumstances, and thereafter, Q had an active intent of investment, such as extending the investment contract several times.

The remaining investors including Q have decided to invest after obtaining preliminary permission.

(3) The Financial Services Commission may not have the ability to obtain preliminary permission to establish an Internet life insurance company on the ground that the person in charge of the Financial Services Commission has not received an application for preliminary permission.

④ The Defendant was granted the right to manage funds to the Defendant from the victims, and all disbursement activities were consulted in advance with the Victim G or verified ex post, and used for business purposes in a reasonable line of view.

Therefore, the Defendant was capable of obtaining a preliminary license for the establishment of the Internet life insurance company.

(2) The Defendant did not have any academic background (or who has a academic degree) and the victims did not have any academic background or academic degree.

arrow