(영문) 대구지방법원 2021.03.24 2020노2467 | 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) 대구지방법원 2021.03.24 2020노2467

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not deceiving the victim, and if the victim did not reverse the contract of carriage, the Defendant could have complied with all the promise made to the victim.

The defendant's wife and the defendant's company jointly and severally guaranteed the loans of the victim, and have been repaid without delay until now. The defendant had the ability to repay the loans in the name of the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the victim of fraud is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. At the first trial date of the trial of the first instance court, the Defendant: “In the event of a crime, there is a crime, not a sentence of probation, but a fine upon the request of the head of the fine.”

Although it is unclear whether or not the defendant asserts unfair sentencing in the statement of reasons for appeal, it is clear whether or not the defendant has asserted unfair sentencing in the statement of reasons for appeal in accordance with the above legal statement of the defendant.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) In the event that the defendant does not make a confession, the crime of defraudation, which is a constituent element of the relevant legal principles, is bound to be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances such as the defendant's financial history before and after the crime, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do424, Apr. 25, 1995). In the case of borrowing money from another person, if the other party did not respond if he did not respond to the true notice of the method of raising the funds to be repaid, the crime of fraud is established if he received money by notifying the other party of the fact against the truth about the purpose of the lending and the method of raising the funds to be repaid, and in this case, it is concluded solely on the

참조판례

-대법원 1995. 4. 25. 선고 95도424 판결

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2016.11.17 2016노436

-창원지방법원 2020.04.24 2019노2388

-수원지방법원 2019.08.21 2019노951

-의정부지방법원 2015.10.27 2015노2140

-서울북부지방법원 2021.03.19 2020노1644