본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.12.15 2017노1993

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.


1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not borrow 42 million won from E.

In addition, if the defendant is subject to investigation of the complaint from the creditor, he could not receive the money that he had been lent to the previous D if he is subject to investigation of the complaint from the creditor, so he guaranteed the defendant's obligation.

Although there was no deception by the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby finding all of the charges guilty.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The victim E, from the investigative agency to the date when he appeared as a witness and made a statement at the court of the court below, stated that the defendant lent money to the defendant in relation to the F apartment of the Pan school. The defendant, D, and J also lent KRW 40 million in cash from G to the office of the defendant, D, and J, and he borrowed KRW 40 million in cash from G on the same place.

A consistent and specific statement that a loan of KRW 2 million has been made is consistent and specific, and the entire contents of J and G are the same.

Even according to the defendant's assertion, it is difficult to obtain money from the victim because D was unable to lend money to the victim several times and additionally borrow money from the victim. However, under such circumstances, it is difficult to obtain money from the defendant for the purpose of giving D's additional loans to the victim simply in the situation where D's additional loans are borrowed from the victim.

If the defendant lending money from the damaged party does not have a monetary transaction relationship between the defendant and the injured party, it appears that there is no reason to prepare each letter of agreement dated January 19, 201, and in the letter of statement dated October 29, 2010, the victim is a guarantor in lieu of the defendant's obligation to pay the money separately from the amount invested in real estate.

reasons to obtain a statement "....."