(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.17 2016노4128

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.17 2016노4128

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In full view of the investment contract and stock transfer contract prepared by the defendant and the victim in the statement of the victim E with the summary of the grounds for appeal, the defendant would return the principal of the investment to the victim E without intent or ability to return the investment money;

In return for promising to receive the investment money of this case

In the end, even though the criminal intent of defraudation of the defendant can be sufficiently recognized, there is an error of misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact in the judgment of the court of the first instance that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant received the investment money in this case as the price by transfer of shares.

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant prepared an investment contract (Evidence No. 34 of the evidence record) with the intent to receive KRW 300 million from the injured party, and received KRW 100 million among them, and the Defendant agreed to hold shares at the victim’s option after one year in response to the demand of the injured party to request the right to seek repayment of principal, or to transfer shares again as KRW 300 million to the accused, and to pay KRW 15 million in addition, the Defendant prepared an investment contract (Evidence No. 34 of the evidence record). As such in the facts charged, the Defendant first promised to repay the principal and to not mislead the injured party.

On the other hand, the victim made an investment contract and prepared an investment contract in accordance with the defendant's proposal that he will repay the principal of the investment in accordance with the choice after one year from the investigation agency to the court. On the same day, the victim made a statement to the effect that the principal of the investment is due to deception promising to repay the principal of the defendant. The victim's investment decision was made in this court, and the following circumstances, i.e., investment contract and shares, which were duly adopted and investigated in this court.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.19 2016고단1978

-서울서부지방법원 2014.02.11 2013노1075

-서울남부지방법원 2018.02.09 2016노2479

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.12.19 2017고단1907

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.11 2016노1132