logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.05.14 2017노5412
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant sufficiently explained the situation at the time of borrowing money from the damaged person; and (b) there was no intention to obtain money from the injured person by deception.

2. Determination

A. On October 13, 201, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case stated that “D” office operated by the Defendant in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government by the Defendant, and that “The Victim E requires money to extend to one unit, and he/she will repay money up to December 25, 201 if he/she lends money.”

However, around that time, the Defendant was working for approximately KRW 20 million with debt owed by the Defendant.

D Not only did they have been unable to pay wages to its employees, but also did not provide investments necessary for the operation of a new factory, so even if they have borrowed money from the injured party, there was no intention or ability to pay them.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and received 23 million won from the injured party.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the following evidence.

(c)

(1) In the relevant legal doctrine, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, the determination should be made in the interest of the defendant even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable.

Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231 Decided June 28, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012) is determined as at the time of the establishment of a crime of fraud. Thus, if the borrower was able and able to repay money in a consumption-loan transaction

arrow