(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.09.14 2017노201

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) 서울서부지방법원 2017.09.14 2017노201

사기

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the charges of fraud against the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts) is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, even though the Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 37,50,000 from the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) is not the Defendant but F, and the Defendant was also a person who used the above money.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unhutiled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of the facts, it is recognized that the Defendant, as if the Defendant, E, or F could have paid the money, deceiving the victim as if he could have paid the money, and used the payment of the amount of promissory notes by receiving KRW 30 million from the injured party, and the Defendant and F’s liability for the use and payment of each money recorded in the facts constituting a crime is nothing more than the internal relationship between the Defendant and F. Therefore, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s defense counsel’s defense counsel cannot be accepted.

1. The victim did not hear the request from the F to lend money to the Defendant that “the Defendant would be required to prevent the payment of a promissory note.”

Criminal facts

At the time of entry, F and E were made but the above people did not speak at all, and the defendant Indian investigative agency asked the victim to ‘(the defendant)'.

The victim and F made a statement that the victim and F are only a fluendous one (50-51 page of evidence record). The defendant seems to have been a direct statement to the effect that not only had been given the date, time, and place stated in the facts constituting an offense but also had given the victim a letter of intent to lend money to the victim, not just arranging the F to borrow money, but also a promissory note.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.01.25 2015고단2716

-인천지방법원 2016.08.31 2016노730

-부산지방법원 2016.08.26 2015고단7249

-서울동부지방법원 2019.06.05 2018나30216

-수원지방법원 2013.01.30 2012노2412