logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.05.09 2017노3668
사기등
Text

The judgment below

The guilty part of the defendant's case and the not guilty part are guilty, and the part of the defendant's fraud against the victim F.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) asserted on the grounds of appeal that there was a misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the jurisdiction by the defense counsel No. 2016, 73, 2016, 199, on the grounds of appeal, on the third trial date. However, the Defendant explicitly withdrawn the allegation of mistake on the above facts on the third trial date.

1) Fact-misunderstanding A) Fraud with the victim’s O, AF, AH, AE, D, and AC (2016 Gohap 77), fraud with respect to the part guilty (2016 Gohap 77) and with respect to the victim’s Z (2016 Gohap 209 Gohap 2016)

The victims knew that the investment funds are used in the private light.

In particular, the victim Z has promised to invest more than KRW 150 million at the beginning, but it stated that the damage may occur if the victim does not make an additional investment in the amount promised by the victim, but the victim could not pay the investment principle ultimately on the wind that does not make an additional investment.

Therefore, the defendant deceivings victims.

shall not be deemed to exist.

② Since the victim AF’s investment amounting to KRW 12 million (the victim’s investment amounting to KRW 22 million, No. 11, No. 11, No. 201, No. 11, No. 201, No. 201, No. 11, No. 2011, Dec. 2, 201) is included in the victim’s investment amount, the part regarding

③ Only 3.5 million won was received from the victim AC as an investment amount (attached Form 1 No. 17), and there was no fact that the victim received KRW 16 million (attached Table 1 No. 17).

④ Since the Defendant did not directly contact the victim AE and only received money under the pretext of a private horse investment loan through the AJ, the Defendant enticed the victim AE.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts that the court below found all of the facts charged.

(b).

arrow