(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.03.28 2012노4708 | 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 2013.03.28 2012노4708

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The prosecutor of the grounds for appeal asserts that, if the defendant lends money to the victim D, he/she would establish a second priority mortgage, and that the victim would lend money to the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant's testimony in the investigation agency and the court of original instance consistent with this, the contents of testimony in the investigation agency of the witness D of the court below and the court of original instance, which correspond to this, are very consistent and thus rejected, and the judgment of the court of original judgment which acquitted the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. A. Around January 22, 2008, the summary of the facts charged of the instant case stated that “The Defendant loaned KRW 30 million to the victim D, who did not repay the bonds, at the office of Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, the Defendant would pay KRW 600,000 per month interest, immediately repay the bonds, and set up a second priority collective security right on the apartment in the name of the E as security.”

However, in fact, the F Building 202, No. 804, the title of E, which the defendant provided as security, was set out in the second order of priority mortgage of the creditor of the right to collateral security, the national bank of the creditor of the right to collateral security, the maximum debt amount of KRW 195 million, G, the maximum debt amount of KRW 95 million, and the amount of maximum debt amount of KRW 90,000,000, and there was no actual value of collateral. The fact that the defendant's house operated by the defendant was under the circumstances of enemy's failure to pay the monthly wage of the employee, even if borrowing money,

Meanwhile, as above, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50 million from H on the date of borrowing money from the victim, and set up the right to collateral security on the above apartment, and did not notify the victim that the victim could not become the second mortgagee due to the establishment of the right to collateral security under the name of H.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received 30 million won from the victim, that is, from the victim.

(b).

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2012.10.05 2012고단550

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.29 2014고단4254

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.15 2015노802

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.08.08 2017가단214649

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.20 2018가단5096453