logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 (춘천) 2016.08.10 2016노98
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that recognized the liability for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and a crime of fraud even though the defendant had no intention to commit fraud at the time of borrowing money from the victims.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant alleged to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the above assertion on the following grounds: (a) under the title of “determination on the argument of the Defendant and the defense counsel,” the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the lower court, i.e., (i) the Defendant did not conscientiously notify the victims of the use of the investment or loan; (ii) was actually used to prevent the victims from returning the loan to several hundred million won without any special reason; (iii) the Defendant was merely operating funds by means of preventing the return of the loan to another creditors; and (iv) the victims did not know of the financial status of the Defendant; and (iii) the security offered by the Defendant to the victims cannot be deemed as sufficient security for the loan amount.

Examining the above judgment of the court below after closely comparing it with the evidentiary materials, the judgment of the court below is just and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Meanwhile, Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14516 Decided April 28, 2016 cited by the Defendant is related to the case where the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay money at the time of borrowing money, and it is not appropriate to invoke the instant case in which the Defendant had no ability to repay at the time of borrowing money, and the Defendant uses investment money or borrowed money.

arrow