logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.11.29 2019노1208
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) 1 and misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) Defendant A (i) heard from P, the representative director of M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”), the victim N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) to demand advance payment; (b) introduced B to P; and (c) made an endorsement in the name of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) on the bill; and (d) there was only the fact that the P was accompanied to the purchase site of the bill; and (e) there was no endorsement in the name of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”). However, it was ratified after hearing that P made an endorsement in the name of C

② On September 2010, when a bill was endorsed and issued, the Defendant believed that the foregoing bill was in the face of the breathbbbbbbing area, and that it would normally be settled on the settlement date, and around September 2010, when a bill was endorsed and delivered, C operated by the Defendant is able to repay the construction cost with anticipated rental proceeds, etc.

B. Defendant B (1) became aware of P through A, and Defendant B (hereinafter “P”) knew that P was responsible for and prevented if P was due to the arrival of the due date for the use of necessary bills on the condition that P invested KRW 100 million in the marina operated by AF, and that P was aware that P was to use the bill with a consent of AF, and that the bill was used with a face value of KRW 32 million.

(2) The defendant was not the vice president of C, and thus did not know about the financial status, and there is no conspiracy to commit fraud.

③O, the representative director of the victimized company, is not the direct counterpart of the above bill, and the damaged company was not capable of paying the amount of the bill or the price of the construction in the primary manner. Thus, there is no causal relationship between the defendant's act and the disposition of the victimized company.

(4) Acts of the defendant in domestic affairs.

arrow