logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.05.11 2017노53
사기등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, at the time of borrowing each business fund from the victim D, was actually engaged or intended to engage in the secondary sales business or the import business of red bean, did not have the intent of deceiving or deceiving the victim.

The judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts (1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, has to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime unless the Defendant makes a confession. The criminal intent is not definite intention, but dolusent intent (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do3775, Nov. 27, 2014). (2) However, the circumstances duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the circumstances acknowledged by the court below comprehensively considering the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim started the teaching system with the Defendant, and since he acted with the victim as soon as the Defendant would be married immediately with the victim, it is necessary that the business funds need to be carried out by the Defendant, carrying out the sales business or the import business of the name of the Defendant, and at least one million won per month, or burden interest.

(2) The Defendant, at the time of borrowing money in the name of the business fund, was in the absence of any other economic power, such as fixed income at the time of borrowing money from the damaged party, and used the borrowed money for the actual business.

No evidence may be presented to the victim, which is the person who used a considerable portion of the money received as living expenses or entertainment expenses, and the victim thereafter.

arrow