(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.05.22 2013노3344 | 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 2014.05.22 2013노3344

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)

Text

The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is as follows.

Reasons

1. Even though the Defendants did not have the intent or ability to repay KRW 1.4 billion of the summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendants deceptioned the value of the shares of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AB”) which were offered as security, and the Defendant A had already distributed the shares of Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AB”) under the name of the parent and did not own the shares of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AB”) under one share of the shares under one’s real name, but AB is its own company, and the victim N (hereinafter “N”) has a value of appraisal of KRW 10 billion. In addition, if the Defendant B fails to repay the shares, he/she acquired the amount of KRW 1.4 billion by deceiving him/her by selling the shares of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the credibility of N's statements based on the statements of P without credibility and acquitted the Defendants on the grounds that there is no evidence to deem that the Defendants deceptioned N's intent and ability to repay. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence.

The part N of defraudation of KRW 1.8 billion by subrogation was merely a broker for the financing of capital for capital increase by acting as a broker for the principal of the bonds, and thereafter, by deceiving the principal of the bonds with the ability and intent to repay and by deceiving the principal of the bonds, it was acquired by defraudation of KRW 1.95 billion as the loss to be borne by the Defendants against the principal of the bonds.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a judgment not guilty on the part of the Defendants on the ground that N merely lent capital increase with capital increase directly to Defendant B, and there is no evidence to support that N actually repaid KRW 1,950,000 to the bond transfer owner, and that the Defendants were sufficiently able to make repayment intent and ability. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the

2. In the case of an ex officio determination prosecutor, the facts charged against the Defendants are as follows.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.13 2014고합1025

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2012.02.23 2011고합154 (1)

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2016.09.08 2015고단386

-서울고등법원 2014.06.12 2013노3373

-광주지방법원 2013.07.09 2013고정924