logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.04.22 2015노936
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) When the defendant misunderstanding of facts borrows money from the injured party, he has received money from the defendant's account or received money in cash, he has prepared a certificate of borrowing.

Therefore, the Defendant did not borrow the cash lending details, among the loan details claimed by the victim, in which there is no loan certificate.

In addition, the Defendant repaid most of the borrowed money to the victim, and the remaining portion remains, even though it was impossible to repay due to the aggravation of business, it is not the intention or ability to repay from the beginning.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby pronounced guilty against the Defendant.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

In the appellate trial, the Prosecutor partially deleted the details of the Defendant’s receipt of money and added them, and applied for amendments to the indictment as follows, and since this Court permitted this and changed the subject of the trial, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

Details of the revised facts charged are as follows:

On February 2, 2014, the Defendant had been able to access the victim C, who is a pregnant woman, etc., in the vicinity of the middle Domsan in order to overfluence, and to acquire money from the damaged person under the name of the borrowed money.

The Defendant around March 12, 2014, around the Dobongsan located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, paid 5% interest per annum to the victim when he saw that he / she was living in Seocho-dong, Seocho-gu, and playing money.

1. As seen, the Plaintiff made a false statement to the effect that the Plaintiff was “.”

However, since the defendant did not have any property, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the money even if he borrowed the money from the injured party.

arrow