(영문) 춘천지방법원 영월지원 2012.10.26 2012고단101

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) 춘천지방법원 영월지원 2012.10.26 2012고단101

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

In the course of investing KRW 100,000 in real estate with the purchase of KRW 100,00 from the victim C, the Defendant, who was a university ship, set up a collateral equivalent to KRW 110,000,000 to the maximum debt amount of KRW 203,00,000 owned by the Defendant against the victim as a security against the said money on April 11, 2007.

On August 2008, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim, “The senior mortgagee on the above real estate is a national bank, and I want to go to a new bank with low interest. To that end, I must first terminate the right to collateral. After the bank was set aside, I would like to re-establish the right to collateral by raising the maximum amount of debt to the party.”

However, the defendant did not intend to re-establish the right to collateral security to the victim.

Around August 29, 2008, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, had the victim terminate the right to collateral security equivalent to KRW 110 million with the maximum debt amount, and had the victim acquire pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 33,605,000,00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including the C’s statement part);

1. The first police statement to E;

1. Details of deposits, borrowing certificates, details of each transaction, and application of statutes of the register;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel asserted that the defendant and his/her defense counsel agreed and did not re-establish the crime after the termination of the right to collateral security of this case.

On the other hand, the victim C stated that the defendant had no agreement with the defendant to not set the right to collateral security again, and the defendant also stated that the defendant did not have reached an agreement with the defendant to not set the right to collateral security again, because the defendant had consistently terminated the right to collateral security from the police investigation to this court.

참조조문

-형법 제347조 제1항

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2019.01.10 2018고단149

-의정부지방법원 2015.10.06 2015고단531

-서울동부지방법원 2012.11.27 2010고단2668

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2021.03.23 2020고단588

-의정부지방법원 2020.09.23 2020고단383