(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.10.06 2016노2084 | 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 2016.10.06 2016노2084

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the Defendant and his accomplice E concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff’s agent on September 24, 2014 (hereinafter “F”) and received KRW 500 million on September 29, 2014, can be sufficiently recognized, as if the contract was concluded between the Defendant and his accomplice, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s agent, by deceiving the Victim’s agent, to enter into the sales contract.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the following various circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of the instant case on the grounds that it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant conspired with E, such as the facts charged of the instant case, by deceiving K, a representative of the victim J, and obtained money, even if comprehensively taking account of all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

① It is difficult to deem that the Defendant instructed H to the effect that “The Defendant had entered into a contract with Lone Star blade, but cannot display a security agreement.”

② At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, K seems to have been already aware of the fact that the sales contract for machinery and equipment and scrap metal was not concluded between F and Lone Star C.

K cannot be viewed as deceiving the conclusion of the above contract as stated in the facts charged.

(3) Furthermore, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant and E purchased machinery and equipment and scrap metal from Costakis, and among them, they did not have any intention or ability to sell the scrap metal again to the victim in KRW 5 billion.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is justified.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.05.31 2016노3853

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.24 2015고합708

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.07 2015고합708 (1)

-창원지방법원 2016.11.23 2016노146

-대구지방법원 2015.03.13 2014노4756