logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.30 2016노2121
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the guilty part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant A in the judgment of second instance.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the lower court convicted the victim P of all of the charges of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and of fraud against the victim AC. However, the lower court’s judgment as follows is erroneous in misapprehending the legal principles and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

A) The Defendant did not have deceiving the victim about the possibility or profitability of the new apartment construction business (hereinafter “R business”) in approximately 110,000 square meters of Q Q, etc. at the Namyang city (hereinafter “R site”). The Defendant did not temporarily borrow the money in a continuous loan relationship with the victim and did not have been able to repay the money temporarily, and at the time, the Defendant had the intent to commit the crime of defraudation since he had the ability to repay and intent to obtain the money.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(2) On March 28, 2014 and April 10, 2014, as of March 28, 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from March 28, 2014, and KRW 250 million from April 10, 2014, respectively, and the Defendant is not related.

B) Fraud against the victim AC was issued by the Defendant under the pretext of paying the victim’s debt to AD, and the Defendant requested payment of the amount of the check to the victim, a “holder of the check” as part of the request for deferment of payment due to the financial situation where the settlement of the check is difficult at any time prior to the date of payment. Therefore, a deceptive act is not recognized.

The contradictions appearing in the statements of victims, AD, and AL are found, and there are no monetary statements between AD and AL between AD and AL. The deposit transactions between AD and AL have been made by the head of home.

arrow