logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.05.03 2019노306
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the process of misunderstanding facts with the victim, the defendant merely borrowed money as stated in the facts charged without the due date agreement with the victim for living expenses, etc., and did not deceiving the victim and did not have the intention of defraudation.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In full view of all the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant could fully recognize the Defendant’s criminal intent to obtain money from the Defendant at that time by making a false statement as to the facts charged, and that there was a criminal intent to obtain money from the Defendant. ① Around September 21, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 50,000 from the victim the first KRW 2,50,000,000 from the victim and received the interest of KRW 2,50,000 per month (the investigation record was prepared and drawn up 16 pages).

The interest rate stated in the loan certificate as above seems to be more consistent with the statement of the victim, such as the name of investment in the facts charged, rather than the defendant's assertion that the loan of living expenses was made at a high rate of 5% per month.

② From October 16, 2015 to May 29, 2017, the Defendant paid the victim money in the name of KRW 122,50,000 to the victim.

The Defendant appears to have remitted part of the money received from the victim as above to the victim under the pretext of profit or interest, and see, e.g., evidence records 427-430, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant had engaged in a business that would otherwise make profits.

In light of these circumstances, the defendant seems to have paid some of the above profits to maintain the victim's deception status and acquire more money.

(3) The defendant around December 2017 is a related person who has been running business with the victim.

arrow