logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.01.10 2013노3532
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

All parts of the judgment of the court below against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles by Q Q to the effect that “It is difficult to keep the money brought to use for the sake of attorney’s fees, etc. during the escape after undergoing an investigation by suspicion of operating the Internet illegal gambling site.” This part of the charges is found guilty on the ground that the first instance court, despite the lack of the fact of receiving the above KRW 500 million from N or of receiving the above KRW 500 million in connection with the referral of matters belonging to the public official’s duties, on the part of Q to the effect that “N may receive KRW 500 million from Q, and only receive KRW 500 million from Q,” and that “this part of the charges may be found guilty.”

B) Even if it is found guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the Defendant paid KRW 200 million to N’s attorney fee out of the above KRW 500 million received from N, and paid KRW 80 million to N by replacing the above KRW 280 million with a cashier’s check according to N’s needs, despite the fact that the Defendant should be excluded from the amount of additional collection against the Defendant, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby recognizing the Defendant’s additional collection amount as KRW 500 million against the Defendant. C) The Defendant visited the above main points to verify the distribution of X main points around September 27, 2010, and the Defendant did not have any influence on the above main points from around May 4, 2010, around September 29, 2010, around September 29, 2010, around September 30, 2010; and, in light of the above fact, the Defendant did not interfere with or did not have any influence on the main office employees’s.

arrow