logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.07.06 2018노267
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the testimony content of F, H, and G, even though it is not recognized that the Defendant committed the instant fraud in collusion with F, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby convicted the Defendant.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant provided F by opening up the documents necessary for the loan to the Defendant’s pre-paid phone, as well as the documents necessary for the loan; (b) even if the Defendant requested H to obtain and request to the maximum amount of the loan as necessary, the Defendant did not confirm the due date, interest rate, etc., which is essential for the loan; and (c) the Defendant and F were intended to obtain and file a petition for bankruptcy after being subject to the investigation by the Prosecutor’s Office.

In full view of the fact that the defendant clearly stated, it was clearly recognized that the defendant had intention to commit the fraud, and sentenced the defendant guilty.

B. In the case of co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime by more than two persons, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but only constitutes a combination of two or more persons' intent to jointly process a crime and realize such crime, and there was no process of the whole conspiracy.

Even if there is a conspiracy between several persons in a successive or secret manner and a combination of doctors, a conspiracy relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the execution should be held liable as a joint principal offender for the acts of other competitors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3483, Nov. 10, 200). In light of the above legal principles, in addition to the above circumstances discussed by the court below, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

arrow