(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.05.22 2014노3158 | 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 2015.05.22 2014노3158

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1 and 1 knew that the payment of construction cost for H and its ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as the “instant site”) was uncertain at the two weeks of the Defendants’ wishing to open the tentative name I Hospital, Q representing the victim L (hereinafter referred to as “L”) (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”), and thus, there was no intentional deception against the Defendants.

In addition, as G, the owner of the instant building is the gain of property benefits from L works, there was no intention to obtain illegal gains from the Defendants.

B) The Defendants of the victim G borrowed KRW 50 million from G under the plan to borrow the instant site and building as collateral, and thus did not have any intention to deception. (2) Each punishment (two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts from G, ① Defendant B, in collusion with Co-Defendant C, acquired KRW 200 million as a sales contract fee, KRW 62.5 million as a funeral home construction fee, ② the Defendants and C, in collusion with the Defendants, acquired KRW 50 million as a construction price for the first floor of the instant building, and ③ Defendant B acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the secured value by creating a collateral security right with respect to the complaint by Defendant B, which deceiving G and as a collateral security holder C, and obtained pecuniary benefits equivalent to the secured value, according to the various evidence submitted in the instant case. 2) Each of the above types of punishment imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts

A. The judgment of the court below on the ground that the Defendants made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the court below held the judgment on the Defendant A, B, and their defense counsel's assertion.

In light of the detailed circumstances at this subsection, above.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.07.19 2019노1045

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.08.22 2014노2077

-인천지방법원 2020.09.18 2020노1148

-창원지방법원 2020.01.09 2019노1048

-서울고등법원 2012.10.08 2012노508