(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.25 2016노4988

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.25 2016노4988

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) In relation to the fraud, the Defendant agreed that the Defendant will take the Defendant’s advance payment for the opportunity cost of KRW 5 billion in the event that the said premise is not satisfied due to the I’s fault, and that the Defendant would take out the compensation for the opportunity cost of KRW 5 billion in the event that the Defendant received an adequate opinion from an external auditor by the victims and I jointly referred to as “I,” and that the victims and I would receive an adequate opinion from the external auditor, and that the Plaintiff would take out an investment in KRW 5 billion on the premise that I’s stock transaction is resumed.

Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) visited U.S. accounting corporation, which is an external auditor, to provide a list of KRW 2 billion at a face value; and (b) made an investment in I to participate in the increase of capital at a cost; (c) however, the said external auditor respondeded to the effect that the Defendant’s investment could not give an adequate opinion even if it was made.

As above, since the premise of investment has not been achieved due to the reasons attributable to the victim, the defendant took up KRW 55 million upon the agreement between the defendant and the victims.

Therefore, even though the defendant did not take up KRW 55 million by agreement, the defendant deceivings the victims, thereby deceiving the victims.

The judgment of the court below has an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the judgment.

2) Regarding the fact that K had known that the details of the transaction of the passbook of the bank account at the central branch bank bank account (hereinafter “the details of the passbook of this case”) were modified, which was opened in the name of G as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the judgment below, and therefore, it does not constitute the crime of the document of the alteration to deliver the said details of the bank account to K.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that recognized K as a crime of falsifying the document.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018.07.05 2017고단4353

-서울북부지방법원 2016.03.25 2014고단2495

-광주지방법원 2017.10.25 2017고단3815

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.30 2018노794

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.12 2016고단8267