(영문) 부산고등법원 2017.10.18 2017노274 | 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) 부산고등법원 2017.10.18 2017노274

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(배임)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The legal principle of the facts stated in the judgment of the court below that the defendant forged, and both of Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (2) of the same Article are null and void. Since the victim paid K KRW 425 million to K as compensation for tort due to the defendant's tort's employer's tort liability, the Criminal Act, not the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, applies to Paragraph (1) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and the amount of damages under Paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below is merely KRW 70 million. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the amount of damages for occupational breach of trust, thereby finding guilty of all the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and by applying the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, which is not the Criminal Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle is justified. The judgment of the court below or the ruling of recommending settlement against the victim in each civil lawsuit filed against K and T based on the victim’s letter of performance guarantee and the letter of loan payment guarantee against the victim.

However, as the court below properly states, it is only the result that the negligence of the creditor (K and T) is reflected and the responsibility of the victim is limited. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's occupational breach of trust caused the victim to have a real risk of property damage to the whole guaranteed amount as stated in the judgment of the court below and the letter of guarantee of loan payment to the victim.

Therefore, the responsibility of the victim in civil procedure is the responsibility of the victim.

참조조문

-특정경제범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

-형법

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.05.18 2016고단3885

-서울고등법원 2017.08.17 2017노157

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.15 2016노4592

-서울고등법원 2017.05.02 2016노2916

-서울고등법원 2018.09.19 2018노736