(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.07.19 2018노497 | 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 2018.07.19 2018노497

사기등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and four months.

Among the facts charged, the Specific Economic Crimes.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The victim L part L continuously invested in the growth potential of Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) from the beginning.

In the process, the defendant did not make any false statement to L.

However, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the court below found the defendant guilty of deceiving L.

2) The victim S was in office as the head of the management planning office for Defendant E’s operation and continued to attract investment even though he was well aware of the management status and financial status of E.

Moreover, S made a statement at the court of the court below to the effect that S made an investment with knowledge that E was difficult to finance around February 15, 2016.

As such, there is no false statement about the financial status, etc. of the defendant to S.

Even so, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the court below found this part of the facts charged guilty and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3) The injured party's Y part of the Defendant's proposal to make an investment to Y, but Y first invests in the Defendant.

The proposal was made.

Y 40% of the deposit directly paid to Capital shall be returned at the time of termination of the contract, and there shall be no damage in that part.

Before the termination of the contract, the Defendant fulfilled all the contract to Y.

In the original judgment, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts charged as a whole.

4) AW, who is the actual operator of AA (hereinafter “A”) of the Victim A, Inc., Ltd., (hereinafter “A”), paid money to the Defendant as a donation support regardless of the agreement on repayment of principal and interest payment.

Unlike this, the defendant does not make a false statement to AW and AW does not make an investment in the defendant.

It is true that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.10.19 2017노2349

-서울고등법원 2018.01.11 2017노1684

-서울고등법원 2018.08.30 2018노585

-서울고등법원 2018.05.31 2018노116

-서울고등법원 2018.08.23 2018노738