logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.10.17 2019노645
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) according to the victim B, the mother of the victim H, and the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant concluded that the Defendant agreed to complete the Defendant’s repair work of the first floor of the housing unit C of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction work”) within one month or two months.

In light of the circumstances that the Defendant was placed at the construction site in which the Defendant was able to complete construction works within the agreed period even if he was paid the construction price by the victim, and the Defendant did not have the ability to complete construction works within the agreed period even if he was paid the construction price by the victim. Nevertheless, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had the Defendant’s ability to compel the victim to perform construction works and received the construction price from the victim as described in the facts charged of this case by deceiving the victim of the Defendant’s ability to do so, even though he was paid the construction price.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant of fraud is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In full view of the facts and circumstances revealed in the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court merely deemed that the Defendant had the intent to perform the instant construction work with the intent to do so and suspended the construction work due to the lack of construction cost, etc., and that the Defendant had no intention or ability to complete the instant construction work from the beginning.

It is difficult to conclude that the victim was paid by deceiving the victim, and ultimately, it is difficult to conclude that there was proof of guilt to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt about the fact that the victim was given KRW 11 million to the defendant's deception.

arrow