logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.03.30 2017노3562
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts as indicated in the judgment of the court below (the guilty part in the judgment of the court below) did not constitute a conspiracy to obtain money from F, G, I, H, etc. (hereinafter “F, etc.”) and insurance commission. Rather, the Defendant, by deceiving F, etc., paid insurance commission with the knowledge that the insurance contract entered into by F, etc. was an ordinary insurance contract, and the insurance contract by Nos. 7 R in attached Table 1 of the List of Offenses as indicated in the judgment of the court below

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous and erroneous.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and legal principles [the part concerning joint crimes with T, U, and V (the part concerning acquittal in the judgment of the court below (attached Form 6,7,8)], considering that the defendant is detained, the court below did not give sufficient opportunity for proof to the prosecutor who has rendered prompt judgment, and found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged under the circumstance that the examination on the process of concluding a contract related to joint crimes with T, U, and V was not conducted. The judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion that there was no conspiracy to commit the crime of deceptionation is acceptable. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court can be recognized that the Defendant, in collusion with F, by deceiving the victim by entering into a false insurance contract, and by deceiving the victim with the insurance commission.

The decision was determined.

(1) In common, F, etc. shall pay insurance premiums to insurance contractors for three months after paying them on behalf of them, and maintain insurance contracts.

arrow