logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.03.18 2016노279
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Each of the instant crimes is a situation unfavorable to the Defendant, where each of the instant crimes was committed by acquiring a loan by means of a processing transaction by abusing a corporate purchase financing loan and an electronic commerce guarantee system prepared for the activation of trade among the companies. It is not good that the nature of the instant crime was committed, such as impairing financial order and causing serious harm to the State’s financial support policy for small and medium enterprises. The Defendant’s loss of public funds operated as a national tax by paying the loan in subrogation of the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund due to the failure to repay the considerable amount of the loans acquired through deception

Along with the following facts: (a) the amount of money not paid by the Defendant out of the money obtained by deceptions Nos. 1 through 17 of the attached Table 1 of the judgment of the court below was repaid and the amount of money which was not repaid by the Defendant out of the money obtained by deceptions is approximately KRW 45,406 million; (b) the Credit Guarantee Fund provided credit guarantee for the amount of KRW 90 million; (c) the Credit Guarantee Fund paid a total of KRW 686,253,901 after delinquency of the loan; (d) the Defendant repaid the Credit Guarantee Fund with KRW 191,00,000 at the court below, and KRW 22,50,000 at the court below; (e) the Defendant got out of the financial difficulties due to the shortage of operating funds; and (e) the circumstances leading up to each of the crimes in this case; (e) the Defendant’s depth divided the crimes in violation of each of the crimes in this case; and (e) the Defendant’s imposition of the tax account statement for each of the specific crimes in this case, etc.

The above circumstances are as follows.

arrow