(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.04.24 2014노3530 | 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) 대전지방법원 2015.04.24 2014노3530

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant, as a manager of asset management, has explained the victims of the risks of principal loss in relation to asset management, and the victims only delegated the defendant with the risks of investment (asset management) and did not deceiving the victims by guaranteeing the principal.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant: (a) had no intent or ability to return the principal and interest entrusted by the victims; or (b) had had the possibility of returning the principal and interest; (c) had the victims enticed the victims about their ability to repay and guarantee principal; and (d) had the victims who trusted the defendant received a large amount of money

Therefore, the argument of mistake is without merit.

1) The victim C came to know of the Defendant working in the cosmetic office while running the cosmetic, and made an investment in the Defendant with the Defendant’s solicitation and solicitation. At the time, the Defendant stated to the effect that “at the time, the Defendant had worked in the securities market prior to the pre-sale and received the Scart scheme from a securities company.” Moreover, the Defendant was well aware of the fact that there was a gift and options. If the Defendant entrusted the post-sale of KRW 500 million, the Defendant sent dividends by operating the post-sale and then sent dividends.” The victims are relatively consistent from the investigation agency to the first trial court, to the effect that “the Defendant promised to guarantee the principal and made an investment by setting up the level of security, etc., and at the time, the Defendant explained that the investment contract was in formality.”

3. The defendant actually receives money from the victim C.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 논산지원 2014.11.07 2014고단246

-의정부지방법원 2014.09.04 2014노1376

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.17 2019노650

-의정부지방법원 2013.09.25 2013고합193

-대구지방법원 2018.12.20 2018고단3117