logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2016.11.17 2016노254
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The Defendant’s defense counsel submitted a summary of the oral argument after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal and the closure of the oral argument as follows.

The victim of the crime of fraud is limited to the temporary custody of farmers, who are victims of the crime of fraud, in the D Farming Association operated by the defendant (hereinafter “D Farming Association”) by the FFF G branch until the purchase of agricultural G branch, and does not transfer the right to disposal ultimately to the defendant. Thus, the crime of fraud cannot be established even if separate from the establishment of the crime of embezzlement.

B. Since the establishment registration of the establishment of a neighboring to the land and facilities owned by the Korea Agricultural Cooperative was completed in the name of FFF to secure the compensation liability of the victim FFF G branch, the Defendant does not constitute a crime of breach of trust against DF branch due to the lack of illegal acquisition intent.

2. We examine the above arguments, as they were asserted after the lapse of the period for appeal, and thus cannot serve as a legitimate reason for appeal, and even ex officio, we cannot accept all the arguments in the following respects.

The Defendant, as if he could not pay rice purchase price, could not be paid, deceiving four victims, and received rice equivalent to KRW 73,192,625 from them at the market price. During the process, the victims thought that the instant agricultural chemicals were purchased at the FF G branch, and there is a circumstance that it would be assumed that the victims would be placed at the temporary storage concept.

However, the Defendant clearly stated that the purchasing entity of the instant pesticide-free rice was the Defendant himself/herself (2015 Gohap212 investigation records 426 ) and that the head of the economic team at the FFF G G branch AFC did not purchase non-pesticide-free rice.

(2015 Gohap212 Investigation Records 444 pages) Accordingly, the Defendant enticed the victims so that FFF G branches would be aware that they purchased agricultural rice from agricultural chemicals.

arrow