(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.01.10 2016노2962

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) 의정부지방법원 2017.01.10 2016노2962

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eleven months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the victim G.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant did not intend to acquire money from the victim B.

In addition, the money of KRW 10 million received on January 31, 2013 and KRW 30 million received on February 25, 2013 is not borrowed money, and the money is not stolen.

2) The Defendant did not intend to acquire money from the victim G.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court: (a) the Defendant promised to pay the amount of money borrowed from the profits accrued from the operation of the danran bar to the victim B; (b) the Defendant, despite receiving KRW 117,00,000 from the victim B as the acquisition fund, was not used for taking over the danran bar (see, e.g., title 112 of the investigation record); and (c) the business owner J stated to the effect that there was no receipt fee. The Defendant used at least KRW 30,00,000 or KRW 40,000 from the amount received from the victim B as living expenses, etc.

In light of the fact that a statement is made (refer to the 1st page 71 of the investigation record), it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant has an intention to acquire money from the victim B.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, namely, the Defendant, who received 10 million won as of January 31, 2013 and 30 million won as of February 25, 2013, claimed that the Defendant did not borrow money (see, e.g., title 1, 13 of the investigation record), had recommended the Defendant to operate a dan bar (see, e.g., title 13 of the investigation record).

O also has written a written confirmation to the effect that each of the above amounts was borrowed (see, e.g., No. 14 of the investigation records).

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.05.17 2016노470

-수원지방법원 2018.06.29 2018노1273

-수원지방법원 2017.05.26 2016노6191

-의정부지방법원 2016.07.19 2016노1388

-서울동부지방법원 2018.10.16 2018고정685