(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.08.23 2018노344 | 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 2018.08.23 2018노344

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that part of the security offered to the victim company after October 4, 2016 was already offered as security to other financial institutions. However, the lower court already known that the Defendant had been aware of the fact even before October 4, 2016.

In light of this part of the facts charged, all of the charges were convicted, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

2) In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as misconception of the facts, the court below’s unfair sentencing is too unreasonable (the attorney’s opinion, etc. presented after the expiration of the period for submitting an appeal). (b) In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1), it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant transferred the name of the land species to a financial institution by acquiring the name of the owner of the land and obtained the loan from the Defendant to the financial institution as collateral and obtained the loan from the Defendant without any actual transaction from the S, etc., which is a supplier of the land category, to the extent that the document related to the false transaction is true, and as long as the loan was made with the belief that the content of the document related to the false transaction is true, the court below acquitted all the charges

2) Improper sentencing of the lower court is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted that the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts was identical to the assertion of mistake of the above facts, and the lower court rejected the aforementioned assertion by providing a detailed statement on the determination.

On June 9, 2016, the lower court: (a) deemed that a loan of KRW 45 million between the Defendant and the BE is a duplicate loan on the same bill of lading; (b) on the premise that a loan of KRW 45 million between the Z and AA, Inc. is a double loan on the same bill of lading; and (c) held the judgment below and the lower court on the grounds of conviction.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.05.02 2017노4663

-광주지방법원 2017.09.20 2016노2526

-광주지방법원 2017.09.27 2017노389

-광주지방법원 2018.03.28 2017노2955

-서울고등법원 2017.02.16 2016노2617