(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.10.20 2017노3636 | 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 2017.10.20 2017노3636

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) did not consent to the change of the name of the owner, there is no fact that C does not request the defendant to pay down payment, and the defendant attempted to do so with the power of delegation of C around December 2, 2013, the defendant did not have the ability or intent to normally proceed with the change of the name of the owner.

In addition to the fact that the defendant was paid KRW 20 million from F for the expenses required for the change of the name of the owner, and was consumed for all personal purposes on 50,000,000 won, the defendant can be recognized as the fact of deceiving the victim with the intention of defraudation. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the judgment.

2. In addition to the circumstances described in the lower court’s detailed judgment, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant borrowed 20 million won from F to the F on October 17, 2013, with the amount necessary for changing the name of the owner of C, and if the name is not changed by November 20, 2013, the Defendant shall repay the said amount, and if it is not repaid within the given period, he/she shall waive the lien against G and H.

The phrase “a letter of understanding” shall be drawn up and notarized, and even according to the contents of the above letter of understanding, 20 million won shall be returned in the event that the name of the owner is not changed, and the use thereof shall have been specified.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the defendant had the intention to acquire the above money by fraud only because he/she consumed the above money for personal use.

It is difficult to see that the first instance court held that the Defendant and H requested to change their names in the future and the consultation did not proceed. However, the Defendant presented the power of attorney in the name of H and the consultation was made.

The defendant and the defendant set up two times from July 2013 to October 201 of the same year.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.16 2017고단5290

-수원지방법원 2018.07.20 2018노408

-수원지방법원안산지원 2020.09.25 2020고단2157

-서울동부지방법원 2018.09.14 2018노782

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.01.12 2017고단1481