(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.01.09 2013노1891

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 2014.01.09 2013노1891

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant had received 30 million won in return for the transfer of the right to remove the sports center of this case to the victim. However, there was no false statement as stated in the facts charged.

The defendant did not have been delegated with the right to remove by the executor, but only said defendant was delegated by I.

However, I confirmed whether the Defendant transferred the right to remove in KRW 20 million to the Defendant who received the redevelopment project implementer L, and confirmed whether the Defendant transferred the right to remove in KRW 20 million to the Defendant. After having taken over the right to remove from I, I attempted to do the removal to the N and Dong with the license to remove the removal, but the Defendant transferred the right to remove to the victim due to the lack of N and opinions. As such, the Defendant believed the horses with L and I, and did not deceiving the victim, and did not have the intention to commit fraud.

In addition, since there was a claim of KRW 300 million against the O at the time, it was also sufficient to repay.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the owner of the sports center of this case did not request removal to another person; and (ii) there was no filing of a report on the removal of the building of the sports center of this case and an application for a building permit with the Yongsan-gu Office, the competent authority; and (iii) the victim’s “building removal service contract” with the sports center of this case provides removal services to I; (iv) the contents of the contract with the sports center of this case are “the sports center of this case grants removal services to I (the seal of L, not the owner or representative, on the part of the seal of the sports center of this case under the above contract)”; and (v) the “a letter of delegation” is

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.05.30 2012고단7250

-서울고등법원 2013.05.09 2013노764

-인천지방법원 2016.10.19 2015고단5225

-대법원 2019. 12. 27. 선고 2015다78857 판결

-의정부지방법원 2018.09.13 2017나8525