logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.06.20 2013노3916
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance excluding an application for compensation order and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.

Defendant 1.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In relation to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against Victim G in Article 1(1) of the Judgment on the misunderstanding of Facts (the judgment of the first instance court), the Defendant did not deceiving the Victim G to make a false statement about H (hereinafter “H”).

B) As to the fraud against the victim'sO under Paragraph (2) of the holding, the Defendant entered into an export contract for medical devices equivalent to USD 1.6 million annually with a foreign medical device dealer. However, as the Defendant demanded the replacement of the said machinery with a high-class rental, the above high-class rental purchase cost is required and explained it to the victim'sO and borrowed KRW 300 million. After that, at the expense for solving the above rental replacement problem, the Defendant borrowed it from the above victim because it is necessary to pay KRW 20 million to the head of the Clori French branch office. However, it is difficult to explain the complex process, and it is merely a nominal exchange commission because the Defendant has sufficient intent and ability to pay to the above victim through the above export contract. (c) It is not a fraud crime since the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim P and contact account (AH and AI) used for fraud with respect to the fraud of the victim, or the remainder of the account deposit is not used for the purpose of using the other victim's account account.

The lower court deemed that the Defendant committed such act on the ground that part of the money deposited by the said victim was transferred to the foreign exchange bank account under the name of the Defendant, but the Defendant is not liable for controlling the said victim’s act of fraud. Each of the items of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the holding.

arrow