(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.01.08 2014노2602 | 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) 인천지방법원 2015.01.08 2014노2602

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the victim was aware of the circumstances of the defendant, and the defendant did not first lend money to the victim, and at the time, the defendant was able to operate the so-called so-called “brin restaurant” and actually had the intent and ability to operate the above restaurant, so even though the defendant did not deceive the victim, and even if the defendant was not recognized as a criminal offender by fraud, it was erroneous that the court below convicted the defendant, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below and the trial court, the following circumstances revealed: (i) the Defendant and the victim were in common knowledge; (ii) the Defendant talked to the effect that “the Defendant was in common and was in common with a restaurant, and only with a house, etc., it is difficult to borrow money to the victim.” (ii) the Defendant lent KRW 20 million to the victim around March 28, 2013; and (iii) at the time the victim was in common used for two months only.

In light of the fact that “A” talks with the same purport and prepares a loan certificate to the same effect, and (3) around December 2012, the Defendant was unable to operate the restaurant because of the lack of money to prepare internal racks and racks, and there was no specific agreement with the construction company using the above racks, and thus, the Defendant did not pay the above money within two months even if he borrowed money from the victim, and (4) the Defendant was actually unable to pay the money to the victim with the interest of 120,000 won other than that actually paid to the victim, it can be deemed that the Defendant’s act of deception was recognized as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there was a criminal intent to obtain money from the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.07.22 2015고단829

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2014.08.26 2014고단187

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2013.10.23 2013고단585

-서울서부지방법원 2013.02.15 2012고단2442

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2020.07.23 2019고단1525