logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.03 2015노282
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victims of misunderstanding of facts fully aware that they can receive the repayment of their invested money in connection with the business of acquiring non-performing loans from the teachers' or Lone Savings Bank, as well as other businesses such as the acquisition of the Rone Buildings promoted by the Defendant had already been aware of in-depth investment, such as teachers' or Lone Savings Bank's acquisition of non-performing loans.

Although the Defendant made various efforts such as continuing consultation on the acquisition of non-performing loans with teachers Korea Savings Bank, Q failed to raise funds, which eventually led to the failure of the above business, and the Defendant immediately informed the victims of the failure to raise funds, and if the victims requested the return of the investment funds immediately, the Defendant was sufficiently able to pay them.

However, the victim J actively proposed to the effect that “the remaining amount of 5 billion won of the acquisition price of the R building may be induced,” and instead, the victim J sought to participate in the Defendant’s acquisition of the R building by actively proposing that “the share of 50% of the acquisition price of the R building would be changed.” As such, the agreement was concluded regarding re-investment of 275 million won of the investment amount in this case.

In light of the above process, there was no intention to obtain the above investment money from the victims at the time of the receipt of the above investment money.

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

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the following circumstances, and considering the fact that the Defendant continued consultation with the Teachers’ Lone Savings Bank on the acquisition of non-performing loans after receiving the instant investment money from the victims, the Defendant is at the time.

arrow