logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2017.08.23 2016고정162
사기
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The Defendant of the instant facts charged concluded a contract for manufacturing and delivering towing vehicles upon receiving KRW 39,50,000 from the complainant and receiving KRW 39,50,000 from the complainant, as a person who had been operating the Plaintiff in the wife

On December 23, 2013, the Defendant discontinued his business and suspended the manufacture of towing cars to the complainants on the building in the building E in the Chungcheongbuk-si.

The owner registered as a business entity for lending money, thereby making towing vehicles or requesting another business entity to deliver and borrow the towing vehicles immediately, and making a false statement to the effect that he/she will complete payment within six months.

그러나 사실 피고인은 당시 벌금도 내지 못해 노역을 하는 등 재산상태가 매우 나빴기 때문에 고소인에게 빌린 돈을 갚을 의사나 능력이 없었다.

On December 24, 2013, the Defendant, by deceiving the complainant, received KRW 500,000,000 from the complainant, 5,000,000 from the Agricultural Cooperative account G under the name of F as a loan, and on February 11, 2014, KRW 5,70,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the complainant was received from the Defendant’s agricultural bank account under the name of H.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant borrowed 5.7 million won as stated in the facts charged of the instant case from the complainant, but all of the borrowed money used for its original purpose and did not deceiving the complainant.

3. The burden of proving the facts constituting an offense prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on evidence with probative value that makes a judge feel true enough to have no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine it with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096, Jun. 25, 2009). In addition, in the consumption lending transaction, the lender and the borrower are the lender.

arrow