(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.01.12 2015노2063 | 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) 광주지방법원 2016.01.12 2015노2063

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

According to the evidence submitted in the summary of the grounds for appeal, it can be recognized that the defendant concludes a lease contract by deceiving the victim and defrauds the security money.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

Judgment

A. The facts charged are as follows: (a) the Defendant and the husband of the Defendant and the Defendant owed a debt of approximately KRW 250 million to the Defendant and the Defendant’s husband E around the early April 2012, and (b) the right to collateral security amounting to KRW 79.2 million to KRW 50,000,000 to KRW 100,000,000 in F apartment at the time of taking possession of the above E (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) was established; (c) the Defendant and the above E’s property or income were difficult to fulfill the above obligation; (d) there was no other property or income; (e) even if the above apartment is leased to the victim G, the Defendant could have fulfilled his/her intent or ability to return the security deposit to the victim at the time of termination of the lease agreement, and (e) it may be said that the Defendant had never fulfilled his/her intention or ability to return the security deposit to the injured party.

4. 11. The lease contract for the above apartment, one million won, and April 23, 2012;

4. 24. 30 million won as part payments, and June 11, 2012;

6. On June 13, 2012, a person received each remittance of KRW 18.5 million under the pretext of the balance, and received KRW 15.5 million under the pretext of the balance on June 13, 2012, and acquired 65 million in total.

B. The lower court determined as to the facts charged, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s active property and small property; (b) the current status of the right to collateral security established on the instant apartment; (c) the date of the moving-in report of the injured party; and (d) the price of the instant apartment; and (e) the victim was aware of the fact that the right to collateral security was established on the instant apartment at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement with the Defendant and the victim; and

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2015.07.23 2014고단1946

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2012.12.26 2012고단1618

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.10.11 2016고단4039

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2016.09.02 2016고단1826

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.11.29 2016고단2539