logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.06.16 2016노2143
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of the source of the loan of this case, the defendant's economic situation at the time of the next use, and the security value of the vehicle that established a mortgage, etc., the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, despite the fact that the defendant was sufficiently recognized by deceiving the victim.

2. The lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the instant charges, on the grounds that ① the Defendant used the borrowed money as it was notified to the victim’s monthly salary, and the installment of dump truck appears to have been constantly paid, ② the Defendant set up a mortgage over the Defendant’s dump truck two parts as collateral, ③ the Defendant failed to repay the borrowed money, ③ the Defendant paid a high interest rate of KRW 20 million, which is about 5% per month for the following three months, but the Defendant could not repay the principal and interest due to the unexpected business malfunction, such as the reproduction of the dump truck, etc., which would have been anticipated and could not be repaid.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment’s acquittal in comparison with the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and furthermore, it was aware that the victim E was aware that the Defendant’s financial condition was not good at the time of borrowing the instant cargo,” and that the Defendant already set a collateral security right of KRW 5 million in the name of Nonghyup Capital at the time of establishing the right to collateral security for dump trucks, but, notwithstanding prior collateral security right, there was a collateral value even in the case of prior collateral security right.

The court below determined that the defendant did not pay money to the victim, and what belongs to the victim.

“Contact.” means contact.

arrow