logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.08.11 2015노2477
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In full view of the victim’s statements in the court of the court below and the statement in G’s investigation agency, the victim was entitled to solely dispose of the scrap metal emitted from the construction site of the E company as the rights acquired by the victim under the on-site scrap metal treatment contract concluded with the defendant (the 12th page of the investigation records)

It is recognized that mistake has been caused, and the defendant will return money if the pelvis in which scrap iron has occurred does not proceed.

Although it is sufficiently recognized that the situation of returning money at the time of the victim's speech may occur, it can be recognized that all of them have the intention of not being able to consume money at the cost of living, so the criminal intent of deception and deception is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the statements of the victim and G on the ground that the victim and G did not have credibility and sentenced the defendant not guilty on the ground that the facts charged constitute a case where there is no evidence of a crime. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding facts

2. On January 13, 2010, the Defendant is entitled to deposit KRW 20 million to the victim C in the mutual influent restaurant located in the Dong Ordinance of Macheon-si around 19:00 on January 13, 2010. The Defendant is entitled to independently handle scrap metal generated at the construction site of E company E company’s apartment at the site of the F apartment of the company located in Macheon-si.

It is intended to return money without commencing the framework construction of scrap iron in the E-corporate company.

“The phrase was made.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have the ability to solely handle scrap metal generated at the construction site of the above apartment complex, and even if the Defendant received money from the injured party as a result of the transfer of the right to solely deal with scrap metal, it was thought to use it as living expenses, etc., and there was no intention or ability to return the money.

arrow