(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.12.05 2018노2529 | 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 2018.12.05 2018노2529

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In relation to the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, Defendant 4 and 5 of the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant, who was supplied a joint or stein ethyl plate by the U.S. and the Dispute Settlement Bank Co., Ltd., had the intent and ability to pay the price for the goods at a time when the transaction begins, such as paying a considerable portion of the price for the goods or providing adequate security such as real estate, bills, etc., but was unable to pay the price for the goods due to ex post facto

shall not be deemed to exist.

In relation to the facts of the crime No. 7 of the judgment below, the defendant only mediated the iron market transaction between AK and the KAH, and even if the defendant is a party to the transaction, he could not anticipate the default of the electronic bill offered as security. Therefore, the defendant had the intention to acquire it by deception.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one and half years and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes Nos. 2, 5 and 6 of the lower judgment’s holding and for the crimes No. 1, 3, 4 and 7 of the lower judgment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor 1) The part of the prepaid transaction or cash transaction is merely the form of active deceptive act, despite the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant on April 18, 2015 and April 30, 2015, by means of obtaining the other party’s trust in continuous transaction relations and making credit transaction by using the trust.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court also testified as the grounds for appeal in this part. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion after making a detailed statement of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion in detail from 12th to 27th 6th son of the lower judgment. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, a thorough examination shall be conducted.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.06.23 2016노164

-서울동부지방법원 2018.03.22 2017노1324

-서울서부지방법원 2016.07.07 2015노1704

-의정부지방법원 2016.07.07 2016노16

-부산지방법원 2018.03.22 2017노4122