(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.18 2014노1586

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) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.18 2014노1586

사기등

Text

The judgment below

Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than four years and six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (with respect to each fraud of the victim X, AE, AR, AS, C,W, D, andN) 1) The Defendant did not know that the victim X was a house without a right to collateral security or provisional seizure at the time of conclusion of the sales contract, nor had the victim X deceptioned that he would terminate the right to collateral security by the payment date of the balance, and only written a letter that he would cancel the right to collateral security at the victim X’s request. 2) The victim AE [the crime sight list in the judgment of the original court (hereinafter “crime inundation list”).

1) The term of contract has been extended and resided through an implied renewal even though the contract was terminated and the return of the deposit for lease was demanded by deception from the Defendant. Therefore, the victim AE did not defraud the deposit for lease by deceiving the victim.

3) The Victim AR (Crimes No. 2) received a refund of KRW 17 million out of the lease deposit and paid 20 million out of the remainder of the lease deposit, and did not incur damage to the Victim AR, on the ground that the remainder exceeds KRW 10 million,000,000,000. As such, the Defendant provided all the circumstances that the Defendant would create a collateral security to the Victim AS (Crimes No. 3) and would make a loan, and thus, the Defendant did not deceiving the Victim AS and defraud the purchase price.

5) Although the Defendant stated that the victim C (crime No. 7) will partially reduce the right to collateral security, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim C to cancel the right to collateral security because it did not intend to do so. 6) The Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim AW (crime No. 8) and the existing lessee, and the previous lessee did not order the object to be returned first, and thus, did not perform the contract. Thus, the Defendant, despite the lack of the ability to return the deposit, deceiving the victim AW.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2019.01.09 2018고단925

-의정부지방법원 2013.11.28 2011가합12320

-전주지방법원 2017.02.17 2016고단2188

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2019.11.20 2019고단2339

-울산지방법원 2020.08.13 2019구합6813