(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2013.12.24 2012노1380

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 2013.12.24 2012노1380

사기미수

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

However, this judgment is delivered to the defendant A.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The promissory note (hereinafter “the Promissory note of this case”) in the name of H on April 27, 2004 with the face value of KRW 2220 million, which was issued to H, is not a forged bill, but a forged bill, even if the Promissory Notes were forged, the Defendants did not know that the Promissory Notes of this case was forged, but did not know that it was forged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the intent of fraud.

B. In relation to the fraud on June 11, 2009, the defendants were subject to the seizure and collection order, but did not file a lawsuit for collection based on the collection order, so the court below found the defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts, even though it cannot be deemed that the lawsuit was commenced.

C. In relation to the fraud by the court on June 2009, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendants' acceptance of the period of fraud, despite the fact that the defendants received a decision to commence the auction by the court, it cannot be deemed that the court's decision to commence the auction was a dispositive act, and the victims raised an objection and the above decision to commence the auction was revoked.

2. Determination:

A. According to each evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, even though Defendant A knew that the promissory note of this case was forged, whether each of the instant lawsuits was filed. 1 H is a corporation E (hereinafter “E”).

Around April 2004, on the grounds of embezzlement, etc. of advertising prices, approximately KRW 200 million was imposed upon E, and on April 27, 2004, Defendant A demanded the repayment of the said debt, and on April 27, 2004, made the Promissory Notes in this case with H and his mother-child I for the said repayment. ② H entrusted a notary public with the preparation of the Promissory Notes in this case as his representative, and the notary public is a person living together with H and I.

유사 판례

-대법원 1983. 4. 12. 선고 82도2938 판결

-의정부지방법원 2015.04.24 2015노302

-대구고등법원 2016.12.22 2015노681

-서울북부지방법원 2019.09.27 2019노861

-서울남부지방법원 2019.05.16 2018노2522