beta
Text
Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A. The first instance court held that A.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
가. 피고인 A ⑴ 사실 오인 ㈎ 피해자 우리은행에 대한 사기의 점에 대하여 피고인 A가 피해자 우리은행으로부터 할인 받은 어음번호 N 액면 금 5억 원의 약속어음(‘ 이하 이 사건 어음’ 이라 한다) 은 만기일에 정상적으로 지급되어 피해자 우리은행에게 손해가 발생한 바가 없다.
In addition, Defendant A merely received the discount of the bill of this case from L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) which requires short-term funds, and there was no possibility for Defendant A to have an intentional intent on the fact that the said bill would not be paid on the due date of the bill of this case after three months.
㈏ 피해자 O에 대한 사기의 점에 대하여 피고인 A는 2009. 경부터 2012. 경까지 딸 X에게 주식회사 AA( 이하 ‘AA ’라고만 한다) 의 운영자금 등으로 이미 5억 4,000만 원 이상을 대여하였고, AA가 실제로 Y 점의 인테리어 공사를 진행하여 이에 따른 약 5억 원의 공사대금 채권과 R 호텔 모델하우스 관련 공사대금 채권 약 2억 4,000만 원을 보유하고 있었다.
Defendant
A It is only impossible for AA to pay the borrowed money to the victimO due to the follow-up circumstances such as the failure of AA to receive the payment of the construction cost after childbirth, and there was no intention to commit a crime by deceiving the victimO at the time of the above borrowing.
See The sentence of the first instance judgment (the first instance judgment: the crime of the first instance judgment: the imprisonment of one year and six months, and the second instance judgment of the first instance: the imprisonment of one year and one year) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (i) In the instant case, the Defendant was separately indicted for committing a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “related case”) in the judgment of the first instance related to the instant bill, and the judgment was rendered final and conclusive after having been acquitted by the Supreme Court (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da228 Decided September 17, 2015; Seoul High Court Decision 2015No327 Decided March 23, 2016).