logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.05.22 2013노3730
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In borrowing money from a victim of mistake of facts, there was no fact of deceiving the victim by showing a lease contract of 250 million won which is the cause of lease deposit, and attempted to pay the borrowed money with the proceeds of bringing feed into feed and selling it to domestic farmers. Although the above feed was not repaid to the victim with the wind whose revenue is delayed, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court convicted the Defendant.

B. Unless otherwise, even if there is an unreasonable sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted in the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the victim loaned money to the defendant around February 2012, and provided the defendant with the rent deposit amounting to KRW 800,00,000 operated by the defendant, and KRW 5,000,00,000,00 of the apartment house in which the defendant is residing. However, at the time, the shares of the F in the Dispute Resolution Resolution Co., Ltd. were withdrawn in capital and used for the business fund, and the value of the shares was below the face value of the shares. The lease deposit of the apartment house in which the defendant is residing was deducted from the rent overdue, and only part of the original five million, remains at the face of the rent overdue, and the defendant provided the lease deposit with the victim

According to the above facts, the victim can recognize that he lent money to the defendant with an error or omission in the collateral value of the secured property provided by the defendant. Thus, the facts charged of this case are sufficiently recognized, and even if the defendant borrowed money from the proceeds of the feed brought in by the Thailand, it would interfere with the recognition of the facts charged.

arrow