logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.02.03 2016노5850
사기
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) ① The Defendant did not receive from the injured party the payment of KRW 30 million (No. 6 of the daily list of crimes as indicated in the lower judgment) on April 13, 2012, and KRW 50 million on October 26, 2012 (No. 18 of the crime list).

② The Defendant did not deceiving the victim, used the money that he received from the injured party to work as a loan to prepare the purchase price of the instant building in conformity with the purpose of use, and returned the remainder amount of four million won to the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below which found the defendant guilty has erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, ① the victim made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the lower court’s court on each of the above dates to the Defendant’s trial. On April 13, 2012, K prepared the said cash amount of KRW 30 million by means of withdrawing from one’s account, etc., and consistently made a statement from the investigative agency to the Defendant’s trial. The details of the transaction in the submitted account corresponded to those of the Defendant. With respect to KRW 50 million on October 26, 2012, the victim’s statement and transaction details of M& account prepared by the victim’s cash amount of KRW 50 million correspond to the victim’s statement, and the fact that K received money from each of the said Defendant on a lump sum basis is recognized.

② According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the above argument, the defendant is required to give I money or to appraise the balance of loans in order to prevent the rescission.

arrow