(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.11.09 2018노939 | 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 2018.11.09 2018노939

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

In the case of crimes No. 1 and No. 2 in the judgment of the defendant, the crimes No. 3 and No. 4 in the judgment of the court below.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The sentence (4 years of imprisonment) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unreasonable (the Defendant does not have any fact that the Defendant directly committed deception by the victim AB after the lapse of the period for filing the appeal, and the Defendant included the portion of the Defendant’s repayment on behalf of the Defendant, which includes the portion of the Defendant’s payment of the investment funds of the Defendant No. 19 and No. 19 and No. 19 per annum of the crime sight table of the lower court (2) and the portion of the Defendant’s payment on behalf of the Defendant.

Defendant AB and B (hereinafter “B”) did not have any circumstance, and even if the Defendant was aware of the circumstances in which the Defendant received a complaint, there was deception by the Defendant by either repaying the obligation to return the investment deposit in lieu of the obligation to return the investment deposit or delivering the listed stocks and the operating funds of the Company.

No. 2) The part concerning fraud against the victim F by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles of the judgment of the second instance (2016 order 1389 and 1 of the judgment of the court below) is that T which entered into a business agreement with the Defendant and entered into a business agreement with the Defendant is C and sells shares to the victim F without any change with the Defendant.

The defendant did not deceiving the victim F, and would repurchase shares if not listed B.

did not appear.

The part of the fraud against the victim J (the second instance of 2016, the second instance of 2848, and the second instance of the judgment below) was concluded with the victim J, and the defendant did not intervene in the process.

Since May 2012, the victim J is an additional 29 million won crime list (1) No. 10 per annum.

The victim J has invested in B, but it was aware that the defendant was detained for a crime similar to this case at the time, and that the defendant did not deceiving the victim J.

The part of the fraud against the victim M (the 2017 Height 1145, the 3th crime as indicated in the judgment below) shall be subject to S and B.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2016.05.12 2015노3225

-의정부지방법원 2018.01.25 2017노2464

-울산지방법원 2016.04.01 2016노207

-수원지방법원 2018.09.17 2018노3862

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.05 2018노1126