(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.05.31 2018노414 | 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) 부산지방법원 2018.05.31 2018노414

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the defendant could be found to have obtained the charge of this case by deceit without the intention of repayment or the ability of repayment from the beginning, in light of the following: (a) the defendant was unable to pay by the due date; (b) the defendant was paid with the full payment of 1.8 million UN around Feb. 2, 2009; (c) the defendant was paid with the full payment of 1.8 million UN loan; (d) the defendant's existing debt was not 3 million UN but 6 million UN; and (e) the defendant was able to recognize the fact that he had acquired the charge of this case by deceit without the ability of repayment; and

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant borrowed the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court (i.e., the victim’s assertion, but on May 18, 2008, on the condition that the Defendant would work in the beauty art room of the victimized person from May 2008, when borrowing 3 millionN on May 18, 2008.

In light of the fact that the defendant actually worked in the beauty art room for about 8 months, ② at the time of borrowing the above money from the injured party, the defendant stated that he would repay the money received in the beauty art room where he had worked as at the time of borrowing the money, and actually, it would have been assumed that he paid the money in advance. ③ In light of the above circumstances of borrowing the money, the victim would have been aware of the fact that the defendant would have suffered economic difficulties at the time even though he did not specify the money, and ④ the defendant paid 180,000 more of the above borrowed money around February 2009 and appears to have repaid 110,000 or more of the above borrowed money, the defendant acquired the money by deceiving the complainant with respect to his ability to repay and intent to repay the money.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to conclude.

B. The above judgment of the court below is recorded.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.01.18 2017고단2181

-대구지방법원 2017.05.12 2016노4182

-대구지방법원 안동지원 2018.05.01 2017고단543

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2017.06.15 2016고단1997

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.01.19 2016고단2685