(영문) 서울고등법원 (춘천) 2017.03.29 2016노168

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 (춘천) 2017.03.29 2016노168

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)

Text

All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles (defendants 1) The instant contract concluded by the Defendants to settle the price after the completion of the construction work, thereby deceiving the victims or deceiving the Defendants to commit the crime of defraudation.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Even if a crime is recognized, the actual construction part of the victim's actual construction part is limited to 91.35m, and the amount of the profit does not reach KRW 500 million. Thus, the loan of KRW 419,725,000 = the construction cost of KRW 319,725,000 (=91.35m x 3,500,000) does not constitute a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud).

2) The instant contract was concluded by Defendant A, the representative director of Plaintiff G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), and Defendant B did not take part in the contract.

B. The court below asserts that the defendants' punishment (two years of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below against the defendants is too unreasonable and unfair. On the contrary, the prosecutor asserts that the prosecutor is too unfeasible and unfair.

2. Determination as to the Defendants’ misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendants also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and duly adopted and investigated evidence while rejecting the Defendants’ claims in the court below, the Defendants could sufficiently recognize the fact of deceiving the victims by concluding the instant contract with the content that even if the victims were fully aware of such circumstances, the monthly construction cost could not be paid even if they were to perform excavation works, and that the Defendants could not be paid the monthly construction cost without notifying the victims. Thus, the allegation in this part of the appeal is without merit.

1) The contract of this case is “one-month unit” under the contract of this case.

참조조문

-특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.14 2015노2484

-수원지방법원 2018.11.28 2018노2515

-서울고등법원 2017.09.07 2017노1805

-인천지방법원 2016.05.12 2016노569

-서울고등법원 2021.01.27 2020노1979