logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.12.11 2015노2520
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Of the facts charged in this case, the part of the judgment of the court below that "the defendant acquired 200,000 won from the victim on April 2, 2008 (No. 169 of the crime list annexed to the judgment of the court below) which found the defendant not guilty on the grounds of the judgment of the court below was not appealed by the prosecutor but only the defendant appealed on the guilty part of the judgment of the court below. Thus, although the part of the judgment of the court below was judged not guilty on the remaining violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) which was charged for a single comprehensive crime, the part of the judgment of the court below was judged not to have been exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 191).

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant borrowed KRW 70 million from the victim on November 2006 as the fund for the secondhand export business, but it was permitted by the victim to use the above money as the fund for the operation of the Dododododo center. Since the Defendant continuously borrowed money in connection with the operation of the Dododo center and used it in the operation of the Dododo center, there was no deceiving the victim as to the purpose of the borrowed money. 2) The Defendant paid the borrowed money to the victim at the time when the Defendant borrowed money from the victim. 2) The Defendant was unable to repay the borrowed money from the date when the control over Q Q Qbdo center was strengthened on or around 2008 by strengthening the control over the Dodododo center's major customer. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the criminal intent to acquire it.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact in determining that the Defendant violated the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) was established. B. The lower court’s imprisonment with labor for a term of two years (two years).

arrow