(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.07.15 2016노110 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.07.15 2016노110

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding: The Defendant did not borrow from the injured party 10 million won as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, the defendant acquired the above money from the damaged party.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (five million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant loaned money to the victim who had a relationship with the victim on April 2010 and returned the interest calculated at the rate of 5% per month with the principal and interest, and the security is also provided to the victim.

“The fact that the victim told, on April 1, 2010, issued a copy of the check to the Defendant on one’s own right of KRW 10 million, and the Defendant liquidated a relationship with the victim on February 2, 2011, but may recognize the fact that the principal and interest have not been returned until now.

B. In full view of the circumstances in paragraphs (1) through (4) below revealed the above facts of recognition, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

① The Defendant asserts that a person who borrows money from the injured party is not the Defendant, but the Defendant’s pro-Japanese G.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant did not notify the victim of the G's name, contact information or other personal information at the time of borrowing (the 34th page of the trial record), it is difficult to believe that the above assertion has been pronounced.

(2) The defendant was issued a direct check from the injured party.

③ The Defendant is unable to order the consumption source of his front check (35 pages of the investigation record), and G does not submit any data to support the fact that it has used the above check.

(4) The defendant did not explain the reason why the return of the borrowed amount was delayed to the victim.

3. The amount of money obtained by deceiving the judgment on the illegal argument of sentencing, and the victim.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2017.10.26 2017노1444

-서울남부지방법원 2016.08.12 2016노588

-수원지방법원 2016.06.24 2016노236

-수원지방법원 2021.01.29 2020노3980

-청주지방법원 2016.02.18 2015노1036