(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.05.11 2017노2699 | 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) 대전지방법원 2018.05.11 2017노2699

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the victim lent money at the request of the defendant.

consistently stated and served in H, N, or F

In full view of the fact that the Defendant stated to the effect that he operated F, and that the Defendant was actually operating F in the course of investigating the case of violation of the Labor Standards Act, the Defendant was actually operating F or engaged in at least as an external operator.

Since it can be assessed, the subject who borrowed the damage amount of this case from the injured party shall be deemed to be the defendant.

The Defendant had no special property or income, other than KRW 300 million, at the time of borrowing, and was in excess of the F’s obligation. As such, inasmuch as the Defendant borrowed KRW 20 million from the damaged person as the F’s operating fund in a situation where the financial resources are objectively insufficient, the Defendant had the intent to commit the crime of defrauding the Defendant.

must be viewed.

On the contrary, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. The court below explained in detail the grounds for judgment on the facts charged of this case, and proved that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the defendant borrowed the damage amount of this case from the damaged person and that the defendant had the intent to commit a crime of intentional fraud or fraud, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant charges on the ground that it cannot be seen.

B. The lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable in light of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the circumstances revealed by the lower court.

The prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

1) The instant facts charged is premised on the premise that the Defendant is the actual operator of F, who is the lender of the instant damage amount.

① However, the letter of performance of the instant case dated April 7, 2014, consisting of N as the debtor, joint and several surety, H, Defendant, and F.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.11.29 2018노586

-대구지방법원 2017.06.30 2016노2698

-대구지방법원 포항지원 2017.06.21 2016고단1715

-수원지방법원 2018.01.10 2017노1607

-수원지방법원 2018.11.14 2018노3909