(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.10.01 2013노1735 | 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 2013.10.01 2013노1735

특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and three months.

Reasons

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the determination of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal.

In the case of fraud, where the money is acquired by deceptive act several times against the same victim, if the criminal intent is a single and the method of crime is the same, only a single comprehensive crime of fraud shall be established, and if the single and continuous nature of the crime is not recognized or the method of crime is not the same, each crime constitutes a substantive concurrent crime.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do4862 delivered on February 11, 200, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant deceivings the defendant that "it is necessary to purchase ten-story buildings in Busan K and to open the hospital" with respect to the crime No. 1 of the annexed crime No. 2 of the annexed crime, and deceptions the defendant that "it is necessary to open the hospital," and that "it is necessary to open the hospital" with respect to the crime No. 3 through No. 7 of the annexed crime No. 8 through No. 12 of the annexed crime, and the fact that "the hospital's construction cost, etc. is used for the purpose of opening the hospital." As to the crime No. 8 through No. 12 of the annexed crime, the above, No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are different between the crimes, and the contents of the deception are different between them, and it is difficult to recognize the unity and continuity of the crime and the identity of the crime.

Therefore, it is difficult to regard the mutual relationship among them as an inclusive crime (On the other hand, the relationship between the crimes Nos. 3 through 7 and the crimes Nos. 8 through 12 between them), the above crimes ①, ②, ③, and ④ It is reasonable to view that the crimes are in a substantive concurrent relationship by establishing a separate crime.

Nevertheless, the court below held that all of the above frauds committed by the defendant are a single comprehensive crime.

참조판례

-대법원 2000. 2. 11. 선고 99도4862 판결

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2013.11.14 2013노2597

-서울동부지방법원 2013.07.04 2013노139

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.13 2014노5253

-서울북부지방법원 2015.04.03 2015노170

-청주지방법원 2013.01.04 2012노1015