(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.12.19 2014노2349 | 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 2014.12.19 2014노2349

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

1. The part concerning Defendant A among the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and one month.

Defendant .

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) Defendant A1 of the lower judgment (the part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) or the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the instant case is deemed to be “each of the instant lands” by adding up each of the instant lands to “each of the instant lands,” which is equivalent to KRW 2,800 square meters in total, among the 7,636 square meters of N forest, 743 square meters of O forest, and part of Qingle 2,547 square meters of P owned.

2) As to the Defendant’s sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”)

(2) At the time of conclusion of the contract, the maximum debt amount of the instant land was set up, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that the secured debt amount of the instant land was KRW 600 million, and thus, the Defendant did not deceiving the complainant. As to a part of the instant land, it cannot be said that there was a criminal intent by deceit because the Defendant believed that the remainder of the instant sales contract could be fully paid with the instant land by obtaining a loan available for permission for conversion of the said land as a collateral. Even if fraud is established, the market price of the instant land is merely KRW 672 million, and thus, it is illegal to recognize the amount of profit of fraud as KRW 80 million and rate it as a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) by deeming the amount of profit of fraud as KRW 2014Da84 of the lower judgment on the instant land (the fraudulent part against AB), not as design service cost from AB, but as design service cost and office cost, the Defendant did not deceiving the remainder of the Defendant’s office cost.

3) The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. B. The prosecutor 1) the sentence of the lower court on the Defendant A of unfair sentencing on the Defendant of this case is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. mistake of facts against Defendant B and C.

참조조문

-특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2014.07.24 2013고합860

-서울고등법원 2015.11.12 2015노703

-서울고등법원 2013.04.05 2013노187

-대전고등법원(청주) 2020.11.12 2020노78

-서울고등법원 2015.02.11 2014노2001