(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.29 2019노849 | 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 2019.05.29 2019노849

사기

Text

All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the part of the judgment of acquittal of facts in the judgment of the court below, the defendant only had a vague plan to bring the U.S. appearance business brand at the time, and it seems that there was no specific plan, funds, etc. to bring them into Korea, and there was no funds to make investments like the victim. As to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below, the defendant deceivings the victim of money in the name of business preparation funds. As to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below, the defendant did not recognize part of the deception, and such deception is recognized when based on the victim's statement, E corporation's entire certificate of registration of corporation, U contract, and V remittance statement. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) sentenced by the court of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, since the defendant did not perform an investment agreement with the victim, the defendant is not liable for non-performance under civil law, and the crime of fraud is not established. Even if the defendant deceivings his own ability to invest and intent to invest, the victim decided to make an investment, since the defendant's deception and the victim's disposal are positive and positive, so there is no substantial causal relationship between the defendant's deception and the victim's disposal.

The Defendant did not have acquired KRW 170 million from the victim under the pretext of investment money by personal deception, and was used for the operation of the instant hambber. As such, the Defendant acquired the Defendant’s profit by the act of disposal of the victim’s property.

No property damage shall be caused to the victim or the victim.

In addition, in this case, the defendant did not have the intention of deception or illegal acquisition.

2. Determination

A. The Prosecutor’s assertion 1) Of the lower judgment, the part of the lower court’s acquittal (it refers to fraud around July 2016) was duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.10.06 2015노1514

-대구지방법원 2021.04.07 2021노142

-창원지방법원 2016.11.16 2016노236

-의정부지방법원 2020.10.15 2020노438

-서울동부지방법원 2019.10.18 2018노1507