logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.07.05 2013노1124
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

However, this paper examines the contents stated in the summary of oral argument on June 24, 2013, which were submitted after the deadline for submitting the statement of grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing, to the extent that it supplements the existing grounds for appeal.

misunderstanding of facts: The Defendant, in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), intended to transfer from the beginning the victim the right to operate K Power Plants 3 and 4 (hereinafter referred to as “K Power Plants”) and the right to deliver the city of the employee restaurant of the K Power Plants 5 and 6 workers’ rest area.

However, since the defendant's intention is not communicated accurately in the process of concluding a contract, the victim was misunderstanding that he/she transferred one group meal service facility at the construction site of 5 and 6 construction site (hereinafter "5 and 6 on-site restaurant").

In other words, the defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (four years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

On October 25, 2010, the lower court determined that the Defendant: (a) entered into a restaurant lease agreement with the Chairperson of the Residents’ Living Countermeasures Committee of the Cheongjin-gun, Incheon Metropolitan City, with the content that the Defendant would obtain the right to operate the 5 and 6 on-site restaurant, which was established by JJ Co., Ltd. from the Residents’ Living Countermeasures Committee; (b) around February 2012, the Defendant was to receive the right to operate the 3 and 4 on-site restaurant instead of the right to operate the 5 and 6 on-site restaurant; (c) the Defendant operated the 3 and 4 employees restaurant during one month from March 2012, but the Defendant was unable to deliver the city to the 5 and 6-time employees' rest, and only the Defendant was to deliver the 5 and 6-time employees' rest facilities to the 15 and 5-6-time employees' rest facilities (the 5 and 15-day employees' rest facilities).

arrow