(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.05.03 2017노2564 | 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 2018.05.03 2017노2564

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, each of the crimes of 2016, 1034, 2016, 1338, and judgment of the court below against Defendant A.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor (the judgment of the court below No. 1) committed fraud against the victim AO (the part not guilty in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below No. 1) on July 3, 2013. Since an investment agreement was prepared between the above victim and CB on July 3, 2013, it is recognized that the above victim and CB had no evidence to deliver money to the defendant A, even if the above victim did not have any evidence to deliver money as determined by the court below, the defendant A is at least the commencement of the crime of fraud.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance which acquitted the Defendant on this part is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B) Each fraud against the victim CA (No. 34 No. 34) and BZ (No. 16) (the part dismissing the prosecution) was dismissed on the ground that the date and time of the crime against the above victims were not ordered to supplement the date and time of the crime, and that the date and time of the crime was not specified, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) In consideration of the fact that Defendant B was in the incidental position of CB with respect to Defendant B, and the victim, etc., “Defendant B made a detailed explanation to make an investment by having the victims make an investment under the direction of Co-Defendant A, and some of the real estate used for the instant crime was registered for the transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant B, it is recognized that Defendant B took into account whether the CB’s investment amount was specifically used for any specific purpose and its financial position, etc., and obtained by deception only the allowances paid for the recruitment of investors, even though it was aware of at least dolusently.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B was erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Defendant A(1) Whether the victim CJ is erroneous is subject to a aggravated punishment.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.02.03 2016노2648

-서울고등법원 2018.08.16 2018노563

-제주지방법원 2017.11.30 2017노127

-서울고등법원 2017.08.17 2017노1365

-대법원 2018.06.28 2018도5983