(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.09.17 2020노1244 | 리걸엔진

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) 서울고등법원 2020.09.17 2020노1244

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. In determining the facts, a considerable portion of the money remitted by the victim E (the sum of KRW 8 billion) is the money returned immediately after the victim’s revocation of investment or, at the victim’s request to verify the principal of the investment, the money that the Defendant remitted to the victim for verification after the victim’s confirmation.

Therefore, there is no separate deception as to this part, and there is no intention of the criminal intent or illegal acquisition of the defendant. Therefore, this part of the money should be excluded from the amount of fraud.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it is reasonable to deem that the victim E (hereinafter referred to as “victim”) actually received the principal or profits from the Defendant and re-investment in the same manner. Such re-investment constitutes a case where the Defendant, with the intent of committing the crime of unlawful acquisition and deception, deceiving the victim with the same content as the previous deception, thereby infringing on a new legal interest.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is not accepted.

1) At the lower court’s court, the victim requested the Defendant B to re-investment the principal and profits in remitting them, and remitted the money to the Defendant to re-investment. The victim transferred the money to the Defendant for re-investment in the name of re-investment more than the remitted money on the ground that the said money is not considered as a welfare. The investment principal was not returned even once it was 1.5 billion won. If the victim stated to the effect that it was not returned, as alleged by the Defendant, the money that the Defendant remitted to the victim is not returned as is after the confirmation of the principal of

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2013.10.10 2013노2055

-서울고등법원 2016.08.12 2015노3183

-광주지방법원 2012.12.26 2012노2073

-인천지방법원 2017.09.21 2017가단218962

-의정부지방법원 2019.03.12 2018노2631