logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2017.08.04 2017노132
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by prosecutors and prosecutor B, D, E, F, H, J, K and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B, E, F, H, J, and K’s sentence (Defendant B: three years of imprisonment; three years of imprisonment for one year and six months; three years of suspended sentence; three years of suspended sentence for two years; three years of suspended sentence for two years; three years of suspended sentence for two years; three years of suspended sentence for one year and six months; three years of suspended sentence for one year and six months; three years of suspended sentence for K; three years of suspended sentence for one year and six months; three years of suspended sentence for one year and six months) is too heavy;

B. Defendant D1) There was no criminal intent to acquire loans from Defendant D with respect to the violation of the Act on the AMF AMF AMF AM Cooperation Complex Construction Works, and there was no relation between the submission of a false contract for construction work and the execution of a loan.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and three years of suspended execution) is too heavy.

(c)

1) As to Defendant B and D’s violation of the Act on the AL Construction of New Buildings of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Defendant M’s violation of the Act on the AL Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), Defendant M’s violation of the Act on the AP Factory Construction Act (Fraud), Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the AP Factory Construction of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the AP Factory Construction of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), although the evidence submitted by the prosecutor sufficiently recognizes this part of the facts charged, the lower court acquitted this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred

B. Prosecutor: The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants (Defendant C: 2 years of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for up to 4 years; 3 years of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for up to 2 years; 1 year and 6 years of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for up to 3 years; 2 years of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for up to 1 year: 1 year; 2 years of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for up to 5 million won; N: 2 years of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for one year; 2 years of the suspended sentence of imprisonment for up to 10 months; 2 years of the suspended sentence of one year); and P)

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence adopted by the lower court, found the facts indicated in its reasoning regarding Defendant D’s assertion of mistake, and based on such facts, found the following facts: (a) Defendant D made a false contract for construction works in which the construction cost is removed.

arrow