logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.10.22 2020노1102
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The court below dismissed the prosecution against the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act from among the facts charged in this case, and sentenced the guilty verdict on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the fraud.

Accordingly, since the defendant appealed only the guilty part of the judgment of the court below and the rejection part of the above public prosecution which the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal is separated, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the guilty part

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant D (hereinafter “D”) operated by the Defendant Company (hereinafter “D”) did not enter into a contract for the exchange of printed paper (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”) with the Defendant Company K (hereinafter “K”) on October 2017, and the Defendant’s failure to pay the printing paper for this part is merely a non-performance of obligations arising from the existing transactional relationship, and cannot be deemed as a separate fraud.

Even if D and the victim K entered into the instant exchange contract, the Defendant, even after being supplied with the printing paper under the said contract, issued a letter of payment and a promissory note in accordance with this, to pay the unpaid amount to the victim K around February 2018, and thus, it should be deemed that a new agreement was reached between D and the victim K to pay the printing paper as stipulated in the said letter.

B. At the time of concluding the above printing site supply contract with the victim K, the Defendant talked about D’s economic situation, repayment ability, etc. on the part of the victim K, and accordingly, the victim K could have sufficiently anticipated the difficulty in recovering the price under the above contract, and thus, the Defendant enticed the victim K.

(b).

arrow