logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2015.04.02 2014노527
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) As to the crime of defraudation of money as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the lender as indicated in this part of the facts charged is a family member of P or a company operating P in substance. The Defendant intended to borrow money from P and obtained permission from P, followed the loan-related documents and received money, and subsequently repaid the amount of damage to P, the Defendant is not guilty of this part of the crime. 2) As to the crime of defraudation of money as indicated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant borrowed money from Q from Q to borrow money from Q, obtained the consent of Q to withdraw money, and then withdrawn money from Q, and thereafter repaid money to Q, the Defendant should be acquitted of this part of the crime.

3) As to the crime of embezzlement in the holding of the court below, the defendant merely borrowed four copies of promissory notes as stated in this part of the facts charged from J of the representative director of the IO Co., Ltd. as a collateral, and not received them as a collateral. Thus, the above promissory notes are deemed to be a victim’s D

(B) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one-year imprisonment is too unreasonable) is so unreasonable that it is not in a position to have been kept on business for the sake of the business, and is redeemed after 100 million won out of the above amount, and thus, the Defendant should be acquitted for the crime of this part.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the crime related to the defraudation of loans as stated in the judgment of the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can sufficiently be recognized that the defendant acquired the loan by forging and using the name of the lender or the document of loan at will specified in this part of the facts charged, so this part of the

P. P. P. 203.

arrow