logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.05 2015노3075
사기
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) misunderstanding of facts (1) Defendant A and the instant crime are not recruited, but merely the Defendant believed that B would be able to attract KRW 100 million to foreign capital and introduced B to the J (hereinafter “J”) which is the complainant.

After all, the Defendant was completely excluded from the business related to the inducement of foreign capital and the Defendant’s assertion that B and the victim were the victims caused damage to K as the former owner while promoting so-called foreign capital inducement business.

In other words, on August 2012, the Defendant, regardless of B or foreign capital inducement, concluded a management agreement with the J and carried out such agreement, and was believed to have been actually carried out the inducement of foreign capital as claimed by B. After introducing B to J, the Defendant was notified that he would be placed in the said business on December 2012.

Since then, while H, who actually operates B and J, established a company by directly establishing and attracting foreign capital, the defendant filed a complaint against K, the owner of the land and the funds, who was held responsible for the foreign capital.

(2) Defendant B did not invite to commit the instant crime with Defendant A, and only received the money that A gave while he was well aware of having committed a deceitful act with the J.

In other words, the Defendant, separate from this case, entered into a financial consulting agreement with A and R, acquired money in the name of a commission that enables loan brokerage, and was promoting the inducement of foreign capital for the S business that was promoted on the other hand, but A committed the instant crime by deceiving J(H) by using it.

The Defendant was aware of the fact that the money sent by A was acquired through deception from J (H) and only received the money from A with the knowledge that it was for the recovery of damage caused by R-related cases.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the unfair sentencing Defendant A.

arrow