logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 (춘천) 2018.01.31 2017노104
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) led to the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the F, G, H, I, J, K, K, L, and M eight lots in total (hereinafter “instant AW8 lots”), not Defendant A, but N.

2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 6 months of imprisonment, and 1 year of suspended sentence) against the illegal Defendants in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor (Defendant A) 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles [the violation of the Act on the AW8 A of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)] Defendant A succeeded to the obligation of loans, continued construction, or did not have any intent or ability to pay the balance of the sales price, due to the economic circumstances, Defendant A entered into a sales contract with respect to the AW 8 parcel, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of B.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant A and the victim of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that the sales contract was concluded formally with respect to the AW eight parcels of this case, even though the above sales contract was genuine, there is an error of law by misunderstanding

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and stated the following circumstances, namely, Defendant A, from the investigative agency to the court, entered into a partnership business agreement on the neighboring land including the above eight parcels, and requested Defendant B to transfer the name of the land in the future in order to obtain a loan necessary therefor. Defendant B also borrowed Defendant B’s name as it is not good for Defendant A to obtain a loan necessary for the same business with N as security.

arrow