(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.05.18 2016노3590 | 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 2017.05.18 2016노3590

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, for two years and six months, for Defendant B, and for Defendant C.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the fact of fraud against the new savings bank, or misunderstanding the legal principles, and at the request of the new savings bank by Defendant A, the new savings bank at the time of submitting the certificate of free residence and the lease contract, recognized that the documents were false, Defendant A did not deceiving the new savings bank.

In addition, Defendant A’s loan to a new savings bank prior to the loan to Defendant A, stating that all lessees will be presented to the new savings bank and then the new savings bank will change the building structure, with the knowledge of the existence of a commercial lessee, and made a loan to Defendant A by combining real estate mortgage loans and credit loans. As such, even if the Defendant’s deception was made, there is no relationship between the deception and the new savings bank loan.

In addition, although Defendant A was granted a loan with both the purpose of use and the repayment plan, unlike the original expectation, Defendant A was fully repaid the loan to only three months after the loan to the wind that no original purpose of use was available by stating that some residents will continue to reside. Therefore, Defendant A did not have the intention to commit fraud.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the fraud of the Hyundai Savings Bank, etc., or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, etc., Defendant A was able to sell L normally and pay the difference of KRW 1 billion. Therefore, there was no reason to mislead Hyundai Savings Bank, etc. into fraud.

Defendant

A merely entered into a contract with Defendant B to sell L in the aggregate of KRW 5 billion and KRW 1 billion in the interior cost of KRW 6 billion.

Defendant

C and B, regardless of Defendant A, forgees each of the 6.7 billion won contract and the 5.0 billion won contract.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017. 5. 18. 선고 2016노3590 판결

-대전지방법원 2016.04.12 2014가단31575

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.05 2017가합533018

-대전지방법원 2017.03.28 2017고단174

-서울동부지방법원 2017.12.14 2017고합147