(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.31 2015노2295

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.31 2015노2295

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not have the ability to pay normal costs and meal expenses, while recognizing the possibility of not paying rental costs and meal expenses, the Defendant may fully recognize the criminal intent of defraudation.

The court below acquitted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On November 16, 2010, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case stated that “The Defendant, at the victim D Co., Ltd. in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on November 16, 2010, told F, a director of E sales promotion division, to act as an agent for the events supervised by G Co., Ltd. in the SKNC., which was operated by the internal organization, to rent a conference room and pay a meal amount of KRW 10,335,00 for the rental cost and meal cost.”

However, G Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendant was currently in arrears for a long period of time, and even if the loans for small and medium enterprise policy funds applied for for the operation of the company were refused due to tax delinquency, it did not have economic ability to pay the rental cost and meal expenses. Even if it was paid for the event by SKNC, it was intended to use it to pay the deposited wages, and there was no intent to pay the rental cost and meal expenses.

The Defendant received food equivalent to KRW 40,335,000 from the injured party, and acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 6,00,000 from the injured party using a conference room equivalent to KRW 6,00 per day usage fee.

B. The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession. The intent of the crime is sufficient not to have a conclusive intention but to have dolusent intention, but to have dolusent intent

The perception of the possibility of the occurrence of the result is the same.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.28 2014고정878

-수원지방법원 2015.12.18 2015노4168

-춘천지방법원 2018.07.27 2018노53

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2014.07.11 2013고단722

-대구지방법원 2017.09.01 2017노30