logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.16 2017노7758
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant only exercised the right to compensate for damages against the victim and also received from the victim falls under the amount less than the amount that the defendant is entitled to receive pursuant to the agreement, but the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. In the event of the exercise of rights by means of deception, if the act belonging to the exercise of rights and the act of deception belonging to the means thereof are comprehensively observed, and such deception cannot be admitted as a means of exercise of rights in light of social norms, the act belonging to the exercise of rights constitutes fraud.

Comprehensively taking account of such legal principles as Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6410 Decided June 13, 2003 and the evidence legitimately adopted and examined by the court below, even though the defendant did not have any fact of subtracting his own interest from the house he was living in order to move into an apartment as stated in the judgment below on October 2016, he could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, by deceiving the victim as if he had paid such expenses, only the remaining amount after deducting 4.4 million won, which is the amount equivalent to the expenses, was deducted from the rental deposit, was returned to the victim as well as the amount of profits equivalent to the above amount, even though he did not have any fact of deducting his own interest from his own interest at the house where he was living in order to move into an apartment as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Even if we examine the contents, form, circumstances, and progress of the Defendant’s deception as stated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant’s deception was not acceptable as a means of exercise of rights in light of social norms.

arrow