logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.18 2016노4946
사기등
Text

All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) by the lower court, that the Defendants belonged to the use of the investment fund.

It is difficult to see that there was the criminal intent to obtain fraud from the Defendants.

Although not guilty, in light of the following circumstances, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, since it is recognized that the Defendants acquired the money by deception.

① The fact that the victim stated that “the Plaintiff was prepared to have the leased contract in order to have the money recovered from the date of withdrawal.” However, the reason why the victim transferred the money to the Defendants was for the Defendants to invest in the leased money to operate the business by leasing the oil station and receiving profits. As such, it is sufficient to deem that the Defendants prepared and executed the lease contract as if Defendant B would be a normal lessor is an act of deceiving the victim. The fact that the said lease contract cannot be deemed as a contract that establishes the actual relationship of rights cannot be the grounds for denying the Defendants’ deception.

② If the victim’s rent is not paid normally, there is a concern that the security deposit would be deducted, and thus, the Defendants demanded the certification thereof. Accordingly, the Defendants actively acted for the victim, such as preparing a deposit slip as if Defendant C pays rent of eight million won to Defendant B, and delivering it to the victim.

③ When Defendant A was discovered to sell similar petroleum, Defendant B was also admitted to the name of the gas station in the name of the gas station, but Defendant B leased the oil to Defendant A without compensation.

In light of the facts alleged by the Defendants, it appears that the Defendants were to perform their business through the “Optional Gas” of the gas station, and in particular, the gas station is used as a basis for deceiving the victims.

arrow