logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2018.10.25 2018도10788
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in its judgment, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ratification of the crime of fraud and the abuse of power of representation.

2. The crime of re-performance of the original copy of a process deed, which is stipulated in Article 228(1) of the Criminal Act, based on the legal interest protected by the protection of the public confidence in the official document whose special credibility is recognized, is established by having a public official enter or register false facts inconsistent with the substantive relations, such as the original copy of the process deed or the same electronic record. Thus, even if there is no matter stated in the original copy of the process deed, etc. or there is a defect in appearance, if there is an invalidation, such statement constitutes a false statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do638, Jul. 25, 2003; 2005Do4910, Aug. 25, 2005). The lower court did not err by misapprehending the rules of the board of directors, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, by misapprehending the legal interest as stated in its reasoning.

In light of the facts charged in the instant case, the court found the Defendant guilty of the absence of electronic records, etc.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of issuing convertible bonds and the establishment of the crime of re-making such as official electronic records.

3...

arrow