logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.13 2017노338
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. When considering the circumstances in light of the gist of the grounds of appeal, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant immediately used some of the loan funds (5 million won) and the obligor of the loan was the Defendant, and that the Defendant has no intent or ability to repay up to the date, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

A. The key issue of the instant case is “whether the Defendant was involved in the borrowing of the instant loan” and “whether the Defendant deceptions the victim’s intent or ability to repay.”

B. Of the loan of this case KRW 50 million, KRW 5 million was used by the Defendant, KRW 40 million, E, and KRW 5 million, respectively.

F, who introduced the above details of use and the victim to the Defendant, E, etc., did not know well whether the Defendant is related to the loan of this case and the actual borrower is aware of E or C.

When considering the testimony, the actual director of the company is judged to be E.

(c)

However, the defendant is also the subject of the loan without the intention of the first repayment for the purpose of giving priority to the repayment of part of the loan with no financial ability, and it is not the mere formal debtor.

(d)

Considering that the Defendant was agreed with other persons concerned in advance to receive money as a living expense in order to obtain his own poor living expenses, and that the Defendant delivered a certificate of his seal imprint and a certificate of borrowed money accompanied by a letter of delegation for process to the victim, the Defendant, even though not a person with the original intent, was unaware of his intent and ability to repay to the victim by stating the borrower as an auxiliary debtor, other than a mere formal debtor, in this loan, even though the Defendant is not

It is reasonable to view it.

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is a person who works for Hanyang, Inc. as a DNA employee.

Gangnam-gu Seoul. around October 2, 2013

arrow