logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.05.30 2019노163
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

The judgment below

The remainder (including the part not guilty in the reason) of the rejection of the application for compensation order shall be reversed.

Reasons

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The lower court rejected the application for compensation order filed by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) which is the applicant for compensation.

An applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against a judgment dismissing an application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and the foregoing dismissed portion shall be excluded from the scope of the adjudication of this court

B. In addition, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty on the grounds of the facts charged regarding the “fashion of private documents and uttering of private documents” against the Defendants, and found the Defendants guilty of the “fashion of private documents and uttering of private documents” within the scope of the same facts charged. The Defendants appealed against the guilty part of the lower judgment, appealed, and the Prosecutor did not appeal or appeal the aforementioned part of the reasoning, and thus, the part of the Defendant’s acquittal in the reasoning was also judged in the trial along with the guilty part in accordance with the principle of no appeal. However, even though this part was already abandoned from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and thus, it cannot be determined even that part.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. The judgment of Defendant A committed the instant crime by using its own discretion despite being delegated with affairs related to the instant transport contract by obtaining trust from the victim company. Defendant B was not only directly involved in the instant crime, but also deemed to hold profits acquired by the instant crime through AH, etc., and the amount of damage incurred by the victim company’s property reaches approximately KRW 800 million in total, etc., which is disadvantageous to the Defendants.

arrow