logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.04.05 2012노2648 (1)
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of the fact that the part of the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, at the time when the victim withdraws from the bank to make a statement that he/she would lend the money to the defendant, was actually withdrawn from the account of the victim, and that the part of endorsement with the name and telephone number of the defendant was confirmed on the check withdrawn by the victim, the fact that the victim was given money

In addition, even if the writing of the defendant's name and telephone number on the back of the check withdrawn from the victim's account cannot be readily determined as the defendant, it is similar to the defendant's penology as a result of appraisal, and it is against the common sense that the victim, a basic living recipient, without any consideration, delivers the money of KRW 1.5 million to the defendant.

In full view of these facts, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge the fact of the crime in light of the victim's statement and the evidence related to the check of endorsement by the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case stated that “A down payment is needed to move the American funeral to the victim C. If the Defendant borrowed money, the Defendant would give the American funeral and receive the deposit.”

However, even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim, he did not intend to repay it.

On March 31, 2010, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was issued KRW 1 million in cash and KRW 1.5 million in total at the front of the Incheon Family Dong-dong, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, and KRW 1.5 million in cash.

B. The lower court’s judgment, based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, that is, C’s statement on the amount of money withdrawn on March 31, 2010 by C and the amount of money lent to the Defendant, is inconsistent, and C lends money to the Defendant on March 31, 2010.

arrow