logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.02.14 2016노3563
사기등
Text

1. Defendant A

A. Of the part of the lower judgment against Defendant A, fraud related to H P P P Postnatal Care Center against Victim A.

Reasons

1. Summary of the Prosecutor’s Grounds for Appeal: The lower court found the Defendants not guilty on the ground that each of the facts charged in this case against the Defendants was guilty as follows. A.

Defendant

A, C, and D’s fraud part against the victim I andO (F before the opening of the name; hereinafter the same shall apply) committed by the Defendant C, etc., who introduced himself and her to her husband, committed an investment in the H postnatal Care Center by promising the victim I andO to return the investment and pay dividends at any time. The victims believed this and invested in the H Postnatal Care Center.

However, at the time, Defendant A was unable to pay the construction cost to the H Postnatal Care Business Operator at the time, and the victim I andO received investments from H with respect to H postnatal care centers and paid them as the construction cost of the V Postnatal Care Center located in other regions. As such, Defendant A did not have the intent and ability to return the investment money or pay the dividend, etc. at any

On the other hand, even if the defendant C is not the husband of the defendant A, the defendant C acted as if the defendant A's horses were true by hearing and denying the statement of the defendant A who introduced himself as the husband.

In addition, Defendant C and D received money from the victim I andO to the account in the name of the principal.

Therefore, Defendant A, C, and D can be recognized that they acquired investments in the post care center from victim I andO in collusion.

B. In light of the fact that Defendant A was the actual operator of Defendant A, B, and C’s seven victims T, etc., and there was a record of being convicted of fraud due to the failure to pay the construction cost in the operation of the same kind of company prior to the instant case. In light of the fact that Defendant A had no intention or ability to pay the construction cost to seven victims T, etc. at the time.

(c).

arrow