logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.05.28 2015노182
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the victim G of mistake of facts transfers money to the Defendant by means of lending KRW 132 million to the Defendant, the Defendant did not take the above KRW 132 million from the victim G in relation to the gift certificate business, not by taking the victim G with respect to the gift certificate business, but by BW borrowed the above KRW 132 million from the victim G, and the above KRW 132 million from the victim G cannot be recognized as a criminal intent of defraudation by means of full repayment on March 25, 2013.

B. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant is a person who served as the representative director of E established for the purpose of “the analysis of rights to real estate subject to auction or public auction and the provision of information on acquisition of real estate.”

On March 12, 2013, the Defendant sold KRW 94,300 to the seller of merchandise coupons in the department store store located in the department store at KRW 88,00 and KRW 5,000 per head among the profits, and then sold KRW 132,00,00 per head among the profits, to the victim G at the home of the victim G on March 12, 2013, the Defendant purchased KRW 10,00,000, KRW 132,000,000, KRW 100,000 per head from the profits, and sold KRW 88,000,000, KRW 50,000, per head, and paid the principal and profits to the seller of merchandise coupons at KRW 10,00 per head on KRW 5,00,00 per head on KRW 10,00,000.

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant’s liability amounted to KRW 680,000,000 from KRW 580,000 to KRW 680,000,000, while there was no particular property, and the financial situation of the Defendant was not sufficient to the extent that employees would be given money from another person. Since the Defendant had already used the money received from the victim G for the repayment of the money under the above name, the Defendant would be able to pay the victim G profit and principal properly.

arrow