logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2020.02.12 2019노2083
사기미수
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal (based on factual errors, misunderstanding of legal principles) determined that a crime was committed under D’s permission by deeming the representative director D of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) to be the defrauded, and thus, fraud is not established. However, the defrauded of the lawsuit fraud is the court, and the Defendants filed an application for seizure of a debtor’s pecuniary claim with the title of execution of a notarial deed based on a false claim constitutes fraud of lawsuit

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case by the judgment of the court below is committed in collusion with the Defendants by the representative director D, which committed an act of obtaining the claim seizure and assignment order (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and assignment order”) and disposing of the claim for the refund of the purchase price under a claim seizure and assignment order (hereinafter “the instant claim seizure and assignment order”) in collusion with the Defendants, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a violation of another’s property or property interest which is the object of fraud. Thus, the Defendants’ act does not constitute a fraud against C.

At the time of the application for the attachment and assignment order of the instant claim, C had the right to claim the purchase price against F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), and C bears false debt and even if the claim for the refund of the purchase price was fully paid to Defendant A, it cannot be deemed that the nature of the claim is changed due to the entire claim, the risk of double repayment, or that F would be extinguished with the right to defense against C. Therefore, the Defendants’ act does not constitute a crime of fraud against F.

B. The lower court determined that the case was divided into C, the obligor of the instant claim attachment and assignment order, and F, the third obligor.

arrow