(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.18 2018노2169

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 2018.10.18 2018노2169

사기

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, 2015 J. 615, J. 6156, the Defendant, while running a business to develop a detached housing complex, borrowed KRW 50 million from the victim I as business funds, and had the intent or ability to pay the funds normally.

The Defendant issued a promissory note of KRW 480,000,000 in total, including the price that the Defendant received from the injured party the right to collateral security, and the said KRW 50,000,000, and the said KRW 30,000,00, and partly transferred the right to collateral security. However, the transfer of the right to collateral security was not made, and the six buildings constructed on the development site are expected to be destroyed, and thus, the Defendant did not transfer the ownership to the injured party.

Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the Defendant did not deception the victim, and did not have had the intent to obtain fraud, and the victim did not perform a disposal act due to the mistake, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles on deception and fraud, intent to commit fraud, and act of disposal in accordance with the state of the network.

B) The fraud 2016 upper group 88666 was committed by the Defendant, jointly with the victim R, was invested by the Defendant, and the victim paid KRW 120 million to the Defendant cannot be readily concluded as the benefit in return for receiving a loan from the S Pension Foundation, and that it affected the victim’s decision-making.

It is also difficult to see it.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged even though the Defendant did not deceiving the victim and did not intend to commit the crime of defraudation was erroneous by misapprehending the rules of evidence and misapprehending the legal principles on fraud.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence that the court below rendered by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Defendant’s mistake of facts.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.19 2017노2957

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.03 2017노4286

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.16 2018노659

-서울고등법원 2017.11.03 2017노2732

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.09 2016노5018