beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.09.20 2016노352

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the victim, at the end of the defendant, was able to settle the bill with the financial difficulties of the defendant, delivered the bill and provided the collateral, and the defendant was aware of the difficulties of the defendant after discount of the bill, and even if the defendant had been aware of such circumstances, he did not deliver the bill or provide the collateral, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts by acquitted the defendant.

2. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court, on the grounds that: (a) the victim was well aware of the economic situation of the Defendant or the use source of bills provided to the Defendant; and (b) the grounds for establishing a right to collateral security for the discount of bills; and (c) the Defendant, at the time of delivery of bills or establishment of a right to collateral security, could have been repaid

by omitting the victim in error, etc. and receiving bills and being provided with security.

It is difficult to see

Also, there is no evidence submitted by a prosecutor in the trial.

A. The Defendant (“the Defendant”) against the victim: “The hotel’s circumstance is difficult to take place only once.”

“A statement was made to the effect that the hotel operation situation where the hotel was in financial difficulties was fluored, and P, who introduced the Defendant to the victim, was also aware of the victim’s financial standing of the hotel.

statement is made.

On the other hand, the victim argued to the effect that he was aware of the economic situation after the bill discount, but the investigative agency borrowed the term " young people by taking out the circumstances."

“I have heard about the circumstances, and issued two copies of promissory notes in the same manner as “I have heard about the circumstances.”

“P”, “P”, and “NNNNNN only once”;

199 10 10

2. As seen, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

The young people borrowed out of the circumstances.

“A young person who makes a request for continuing to do so.”