(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.12.10 2020노1233 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전지방법원 2020.12.10 2020노1233

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The lower court determined that the Defendant acquired the pecuniary benefits for which the period of repayment for the obligation KRW 2.845 billion has been postponed, but the said obligation is only a unilateral assertion made by the victim and it does not have been clearly confirmed, and thus, the object of the act of fraud (re-goods or pecuniary benefits) is not specified. 2) If the amount was specified according to a notarized deed drawn up on July 2009 as KRW 2.845.7 billion, it was a conditional obligation under the premise that the Defendant received approximately KRW 3.1 billion from C hotel in relation to D and E, and the said condition was not fulfilled, and thus, there was no obligation to pay money to the victim.

3) The original and extended repayment period of the debt should be specified in order to obtain financial benefits that have been deferred. However, in the instant case, since the repayment period was not specified at all, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have acquired such financial benefits. 4) In order to deem that there was a deception on the deferment of the repayment period, the fact that the Defendant actively committed deception for the purpose of delaying the payment period should be proved.

In this case, it cannot be said that there was deception on the deferment of payment period solely on the fact that a notarial deed on conditional debt or a notarial deed simply prepared to confirm existing debt.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the assertion that the object of the act is not specified, the defendant was accused of the victim's fraud charge of 2.8457 billion won, and the victim was due to the victim's repayment period of 2.8 billion won in addition to the amount of debt 2.8 billion won after five years.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2020.02.06 2019노540

-대법원 2015.01.29 2014도11744

-수원지방법원 2014.04.10 2013노5532

-서울남부지방법원 2014.02.06 2013고단4153

-서울서부지방법원 2016.12.01 2016노808