logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.10.16 2014노1846
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant does not have any false statement to the victim C as stated in the facts charged.

Since the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the lease deposit (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”) was transferred to the Hyundai Capital Capital, the Defendant did not know that the lease deposit of D building 312, 703, 312, and 703 (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”).

On the scheduled repayment date, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay loans to Hyundai Capital normally.

(M) The sentencing of the court below (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(F) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant at the time of the instant case, even though he did not have the intent or ability to repay loans to Hyundai Capital on the scheduled repayment date, as if he had the intent or ability to do so, he would make a false statement as if he had the intent or ability to do so, and he could sufficiently be recognized that there was the scope of defraudation by the victim. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① On June 16, 2010, the Defendant: (a) requested the victim to provide that “The Defendant shall consent to obtain a loan from Hyundai Capital as a security for the deposit of KRW 20,000,000; and (b) renewed the lease deposit with KRW 120,000 (the instant deposit); (c) on the same day, the Defendant received a written consent to the transfer of the claim for the refund of the instant deposit with the victim’s transfer of the claim for the refund of the instant deposit as security; and (d) received a loan from Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. with KRW 96 million on June 16, 2012, by setting the date of the loan only as the date of the

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was aware that the said loan was made as security of the instant security, and record of the evidence of the assignment contract necessary for the said loan.

arrow