(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.01.29 2014노4836 | 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) 수원지방법원 2015.01.29 2014노4836

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is more reliable than the statement of the victim C in the court of original instance, and according to the statement of the victim's investigative agency, it is recognized that the defendant was given money from the victim by deceiving the victim, such as the statement in the facts charged, according to the victim's investigative agency.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is that the Defendant would pay 10% interest if he/she lends money to the victim C as he/she is in need of money from the party branch of Hanjin-gu, Hanjin-gu, Seoul, to the victim at around December 2010, and the principal would be repaid within one month. The Defendant received KRW 9 million from the victim around that time.

However, in fact, the Defendant was a bad credit holder and was liable for personal debt amounting to KRW 90 million, and there was no intent or ability to repay the debt even if he borrowed money from the victim as above.

As above, the Defendant received a total of KRW 59 million from May 10, 2012, including the Defendant’s receipt of KRW 9 million by deceiving the victim, from that time until May 10, 2012.

B. The court below held that according to the evidence adopted and examined by the original court, in particular the victim's legal statement, each of the money listed in Nos. 1 through 6 in the annexed crime sight table is the money borrowed from D under the victim's guarantee; the money listed in Nos. 7 in the above crime sight table is the money borrowed from E and F under the victim's guarantee; and each of the money listed in Nos. 8 and 9 in the above crime sight table is the money remitted to the defendant's side by receiving the money from the defendant's third party; the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant borrowed the above money from the victim; and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise.

C. The judgment of the court below is legitimate.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2014.08.13 2014고단2128

-춘천지방법원 2019.12.20 2019노448

-서울서부지방법원 2014.10.01 2014고단162

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.19 2020노1832

-대전지방법원 2020.12.17 2020고단3319