(영문) 의정부지방법원 2012.12.27 2012노1766

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) 의정부지방법원 2012.12.27 2012노1766

사기

Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) 1 misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) Defendant A did not participate in the instant case after the victim F refused his request for a monetary loan; and (b) Defendant B and the victim borrowed KRW 200 million; (c) Defendant A did not constitute a crime of fraud; and (b) the victim decided to pay the loan of KRW 200 million as the investment amount with KRW 400 million additionally paid thereafter; and (d) Defendant B Co., Ltd. I (hereinafter “I”).

(2) Since 15% of the shares of this case was acquired as above 600 million won, the obligation and obligation with the victim was terminated. ③ The Defendants sufficiently explained the risk and profit structure of each business of this case to the victim and received 200 million won, so they did not have the intent to commit fraud. However, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of fraud on or around December 2008 of the facts charged in this case, and there was an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. (2) The lower court sentenced the Defendants to each sentence (2) by which the lower court sentenced the Defendants of unfair sentencing (the Defendant A: one year of suspended execution, two years of imprisonment, and one year of imprisonment).

B. In light of the erroneous determination of facts (A) and the fact that the value of the shares delivered by the above defendant to the victim is merely 30 million won, the above defendant may be recognized as borrowing KRW 400 million from the victim by taking the above shares as collateral even though he did not have intent or ability to repay, so even though he could sufficiently recognize the fraud in the annexed crime list among the facts charged against the above defendant, the court below acquitted the above facts charged, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts. (2) Each sentence imposed by the court below to the defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s assertion of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles against the Defendants.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.07.24 2015노752

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.16 2019노2820

-서울고등법원 2013.08.22 2013노1116

-춘천지방법원 2020.12.16 2019노996

-대구고등법원 2020.01.16 2019노420