(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.12.19 2017고정343

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.12.19 2017고정343

사기

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On May 2016, the Defendant and C of the instant facts charged concluded that “The Defendant and C, within the E-cafeteria operated by the Defendant and C, located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the victim F (e.g., 50 years of age), “I will repay the money to the Defendant and C after one month from the loan of money necessary to use the money.”

However, in fact, the Defendant and C did not have any property, while the Defendant and C did not have any financial institution’s obligation of loans worth KRW 110 million. However, the Defendant and C did not have any property, and the revenues from the restaurant are insufficient to cover the interest on loans to be repaid every month and the employee’s monthly wage. The money received from the injured party was intended to be used as debt repayment or living expenses, etc., so even if they borrowed money from the injured party, they did not have any intent or ability to repay it within the agreed period.

In collusion with the defendant, the defendant and C received the money of KRW 9.7 million from the injured party on June 2, 2016, and KRW 4 million on June 3, 2016 from the defendant's account (Account Number G) to the defendant's account.

2. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the Defendant was the Defendant at the time when the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, taking into account the following circumstances:

There is no evidence that can be seen.

(1) A victim may lend money to an investigative agency, but the defendant shall pay the money.

A person who actually received a security and actually paid money has made a statement to the defendant "(7 pages of investigation record)" and has made a statement to the defendant as a security of the lease contract. In fact, the victim did not seem to have made a statement that the defendant provided a security at the time of lending money to C.

② On the other hand, the victim appeared in this court to borrow money, and the defendant met excessive talks.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2016.01.21 2015고단1678

-춘천지방법원 영월지원 2017.12.12 2017고단428

-울산지방법원 2018.06.29 2017고정856

-대구지방법원 의성지원 2017.04.20 2016고정74

-서울서부지방법원 2017.10.12 2017고단1051