(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.05.22 2019노7130 | 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) 수원지방법원 2020.05.22 2019노7130

사기

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

An application filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles merely borrowed money from the victims with the corporate operating funds, and there was no deception of victims by stating that “the Government acquired 51% of the F shares and secured the management rights,” or “the Government will make an investment for the acquisition of a listed company.” In addition, Defendant 1 did not deceive the victims by stating that “the Government will make an investment for the acquisition of the listed company.”

(2) The Defendant cannot be deemed as deceiving the victims through E and the victim G, on the ground that it was apparent that C’s share price was 3 to 5 times when acquiring the certificate of listing at the time of acquiring the F 25% shares, and that it was said that C’s share price was 3 to 5 times. The Defendant, at the time of borrowing the money from the victims, held assets, such as F shares and claims against M, with sufficient means to repay the victims, and there was no intent to repay, so there was no intention to commit fraud. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. (2) The lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as the statement by E and the victim G, and the statement by E and the victim G, which was delivered by the Defendant, and the statement by the investment solicitor, including the victim G, etc., that the Defendant was in a state of being notified of the termination of the contract from F around August 2017, the lower court was able to take over the F with hiding it.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.17 2019노2210

-춘천지방법원 2015.04.22 2014노182

-대전지방법원 2020.04.23 2019노3181

-수원지방법원 2014.09.18 2014노3860

-수원지방법원 2015.04.09 2015노707