logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.04.19 2013노958
사기등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. As to the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act with respect to the check number D in the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court convicted the Defendant of dismissal of prosecution, fraud, securities forgery, forged securities and uttering, and the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act. Since the dismissal of public prosecution for which the prosecutor did not appeal was not appealed due to the lapse of the appeal period, the lower court’s judgment shall be determined only for the guilty portion among the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In 208 of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) operated by the Defendant of mistake of facts (hereinafter “E”), the monthly average sales amount of KRW 7 to 800,00,000, which was borrowed from F on August 20, 2008 from F on September 1, 2008, and the amount of KRW 28,00,000,000, which was received in return for a promissory note discount from P on September 1, 2008, and the amount of KRW 51,691,008,008, which was received from P on September 30, 2008, and the amount of KRW 84,691,008,000, which was received from P on September 5, 2008.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ① the Defendant was unable to receive the amount equivalent to KRW 1.5 billion from around September 2007 due to the failure to receive the promissory note 1.5 billion from the transaction company, which was delivered by the transaction company on or around May 2008, 2008, ② the Defendant used the payment of the company’s funds after receiving the promissory note discount or issued by the O and P due to the lack of financial standing, ③ the Defendant used the promissory note 1 issued by the other company, and ③ the said apartment was sold by auction after the fact that there was no assets other than the apartment bond 1 in the name of the Defendant at the time of the dishonor of December 5, 2008.

arrow