(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.10.23 2019노2631 | 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 2020.10.23 2019노2631

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning Defendant A and the second judgment shall be reversed.

Defendant

A, seven years of imprisonment,

Reasons

1. An abbreviationd name used in the first and second original judgment of the gist of the grounds for appeal is also used in this judgment.

Defendant

A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) The victim of the crime in the first instance judgment, including the victim I, is abbreviated to "victim I, etc." both I, J, M, P, and T.

The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud in the first instance judgment) on A shall be accounted for that there is no obligation or obligation against H of F and E (hereinafter collectively referred to as "F, etc.") on the basis of the annual closing date when the Defendant supplied the meat to H or paid cash (the price for goods) by January 11, 201, which was around the end of H, and since the 14th of the same month, the portion of KRW 1.4 billion, which is insufficient for H to supply the meat to F, etc. or pay the price for goods, can also be resolved by itself. Thus, if B or H performed the normal promise, any damage would not occur to the victim I, etc.

Defendant

A trusted that H would normally perform the contract with victim I, etc., and H did not unilaterally perform the contract without prior notice and did not supply or pay the land or the land price, thereby causing damage to victim I, etc.

Defendant

A confirmed the victim I, etc.'s intent to perform the H's contract, and accordingly, the victim I, etc. knew of the difficult economic situation of F, etc., and trusted the victim I's intent to perform the contract with F, etc. and transacted with F, etc. Therefore, Defendant A cannot be deemed to have been obliged for the victim I, etc. to notify the obligation of obligation between H, F, etc.

In the end, the defendant A did not deceiving the victim I, and did not have the intention to acquire it, and there is no fact that he conspireded to commit the crime of fraud in B and this part.

Nevertheless, this part of the facts charged against Defendant A is found guilty.

참조조문

-특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.02.16 2015고단6103

-대전지방법원 2016.05.18 2015고단3063 (1)

-인천지방법원 2014.05.20 2013고단7781

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2014.06.27 2013고단1494

-광주지방법원 2020.06.25 2019노1903