(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.05.03 2017노5089 | 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) 대구지방법원 2018.05.03 2017노5089

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by deceiving the victims of the fact, did not acquire money or property gains by deception.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted all of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) On April 5, 2014, the Defendant alleged that the victim lent money to the D Agricultural Association Corporation (hereinafter “D Corporation”) on April 5, 2014 to the borrower, the representative of D Corporation, and the Defendant as joint surety (hereinafter “the instant loan”), and the person directly borrowed money from the victim is D Corporation or F, and he is merely a joint surety, and he does not directly deceive the victim. However, taking full account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court, it is reasonable to deem the borrower who borrowed 200 million won from the victim as the Defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① According to the Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement, the Defendant, at the time of the instant loan, requested the Defendant to lend money by lending money to the Defendant, stating that the Defendant would lend money to the Defendant as a result of the loan from the company and the proceeds accrued from the sale, on the ground that the Defendant purchased approximately KRW 130 million of the loan and the purchase funds were necessary (see, e.g., evidence record 209 pages), and the use of the loan of this case was also stated as a resignation and purchase fund, and the loan of this case was also also stated as the loan of this case, and some of the loan of this case was actually paid as the above loan of this case by the Defendant.

In addition, according to the defendant's assertion, the owner of the loan of this case is D corporation or F, and the defendant is simple.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2013.01.24 2012고단3359

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.06.07 2017고단2031

-부산지방법원 2017.01.12 2015고단7417

-부산고등법원 2018.01.25 2017노603

-서울고등법원 2018.05.11 2017노3853