(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.10.25 2018노1108 | 리걸엔진

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) 전주지방법원 2018.10.25 2018노1108

사기등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of the fact that the defendant knew that he/she or he/she did not have the intention or ability to repay the borrowed money, and provided that he/she would pay the borrowed money in this case by talking the victim with his/her ability to repay the borrowed money, and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (the penalty amounting to KRW 5,00,000) is too minor.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court based on the evidence.

(1) The injured party thought that he was the debtor, who is not A, and believed that he was able to repay the debt of this case and lent the loan of this case.

However, considering the content of the loan certificate prepared at the time, the victim first resisted about the delay of payment of interest to A, the amount of KRW 2 million out of the loan of this case was immediately paid to A, and the victim paid the above loan money by reporting the factory of operation A, etc., it is difficult to accept the above statement by the victim easily.

② Even if the victim’s above statement is true, this is ultimately a dispositive act in reliance on the victim’s ability to repay and intent. In light of the fact that the facts charged in the instant case deceiving the victim regarding “A’s ability to repay and intent”, the Defendant’s deception and the dispositive act of the victim cannot be recognized as having relation to the causal relationship between the Defendant’s deception and the dispositive act of the victim, and thus, fraud is not established.

(3) The victim's statement is "A but the principal debtor is liable to guarantee the defendant.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.07.07 2017노677

-서울북부지방법원 2020.11.12 2020노340

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.13 2017노338

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2016.01.13 2015고단692

-대전지방법원 2016.02.05 2014노3277