logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.10.24 2013노2357
사기등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the defendant has a claim of USD 45 million in the name of the defendant (deposit claim or characterson's bond issued by the corporation, hereinafter "the claim of this case"), the defendant cannot be deemed to have deceiving the victims with the intent to acquire by fraud, and even if there is no claim of this case in the name of the defendant, the defendant did not have the intent to acquire by fraud. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty all of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one and half years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes of the No. 1 and the No. 3 in its decision) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime unless the Defendant confessions. Since dolusence as a subjective element of the constituent element of the crime is also established by dolus negligence, it refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of the crime is expressed as uncertain and it is acceptable in light of the subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, and the possibility of occurrence of the crime is recognized, as well as the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of the crime, and further, the intention of the deliberation to allow the risk of occurrence of the crime is required. Whether the actor permits the possibility of occurrence of the crime should be confirmed from the perspective of the offender, without depending on the statement of the offender, by considering how the possibility of occurrence of the crime is to occur if the general public is based on specific circumstances such as the form of the act and the situation of the act

arrow