logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.27 2015노3102
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six years.

The applicant's compensation application is all filed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The grounds of appeal are examined to the extent of supplement in case of the subsequent assertion after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal.

1) The Defendant did not deception the victim D through C.

regardless of the defendant, C only deceiving the victim D.

B) The Defendant did not deception the Victim H or G through C or D.

regardless of the defendant, D only deceivings the victim H and G.

C) The Defendant did not deceiving the victim X.

The victim X voluntarily invested in the defendant by reporting that other victimO made an investment in the defendant, and only invested in the defendant.

2) At the time of each of the instant crimes committed by defraudation, the Defendant had no intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

3) Money received by the victims from the Defendant in the course of monetary transactions between the Defendant and the victims shall be deducted from the amount of defraudation, irrespective of the name thereof.

If so, the amount of damage of the victim D shall not exceed 1.44 billion won, which is recognized by the first instance court.

In addition, the Defendant paid the investment source money and the profits to the public by November 2013, 2013, and thus, the amount of damage to the victim O and X should be limited to the amount paid to the Defendant after November 2013.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the first instance court: 5 years of imprisonment, and the second instance court: 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court on whether the victim D, H, and G was accused of the facts, the Defendant did not recommend investment in the secured substitute loan loan business by means of the Defendant’s personal contact or contact at the time of committing each fraud against the victim D, H, and G. However, as stated in the instant facts charged, the victim H and G through C, as in the instant facts charged.

arrow