logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.01.23 2013노2153
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Under the condition that a L/C (Stand-By L/C) is to be opened in the course of promoting the hotel construction project, there was no deception of victims while entering into a design service contract or construction business management service contract with the victims, and there was no intention of defraudation and there was a capability to pay the service cost.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by clearly explaining the part concerning “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” from 5 to 20 pages of the judgment, in detail. If the judgment of the lower court is examined closely compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined, such judgment is deemed reasonable, and thus, this part of the allegation by the Defendant is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the instant crime is not determined to be unfair because the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable, considering the following factors: (a) the Defendant, without the intent or ability to pay a down payment, merely by allowing the Defendant to open a loan security L/C (St-By L/C) for the purpose of making funds that the Defendant requires, thereby causing considerable financial losses to the victims; and (b) the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, the background and result of the instant crime; and (c) other various sentencing conditions indicated in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the circumstances after the instant crime; and (d) the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Sentencing Commission.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.

arrow