(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.12 2015노3568 | 리걸엔진

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 2016.05.12 2015노3568

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The amount borrowed by the Defendant from the injured party is a total of KRW 967 million per annum and is KRW 6,88,12,13,16 through 20,23,25, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, and 43 as stated in the list of crimes (1) in the holding of the court below (25), 1.135,260,00 won per annum and the principal paid by the Defendant is not an interest.

2) Even if the Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 2.12.2 billion, the amount equivalent to KRW 1.7 billion out of the above borrowed amount was borrowed from a third party, such as AE and N, and thus, the facts charged as to the amount of benefit by the third party who lent the above amount should be specified, and whether the amount of benefit by each victim constitutes Article 3(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes shall be determined based on the amount of benefit by each victim.

3) The Defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

4) Nevertheless, the lower court convicted all of the charges that the Defendant acquired a total of KRW 2.12.2 billion from the injured party and acquired a total of KRW 2.2.2 billion. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, etc. 1) The Defendant asserted the same purport as the Defendant alleged in this part of the judgment below, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, with detailed explanation of the recognition and judgment

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the third party lending, the following circumstances, i.e., ① the Defendant requested a third party other than the victim to provide a nominal amount, such as a direct loan, or explain the source of the use of the money or the method of repayment.

참조조문

-특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.04.22 2015노2130 (1)

-광주지방법원 2018.11.07 2018노847

-서울고등법원 2018.06.22 2017노3795

-수원지방법원 2017.02.10 2016노8075

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2018.12.05 2018노85