logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.05.14 2013노2432
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) The Defendant borrowed KRW 700 million from the victim F for the purpose of raising the E-pent purchase fund, which was ordered by creating a second-order mortgage for E pention, and the Defendant did not pay interest thereafter, and the E pention auction was conducted due to the failure to pay interest, and thus, the Defendant was unable to pay KRW 150 million to the victim D, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. 2) The Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though he did not have any intention to obtain fraud. 2) The Defendant borrowed money from the victim F with real estate return expenses, most of the funds, etc. that the Defendant borrowed from the victim F, were used as real estate return expenses, and was not repaid to F as intended at the time of the loan, and the Defendant did not have any intent to obtain fraud, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below with respect to the criminal intent of the victim 1 victim D's defraudation, which was duly adopted and investigated by the court below, which is, the defendant promised the victim D to set up the 2nd mortgage and pay the 150 million won amount to the 150 million won amount to the bond company. However, the defendant borrowed the 70 million won amount to the bond company and set up the 2nd mortgage to the bond company. The victim D had known that the defendant was about borrowing the 2nd mortgage from the bond company and trying to set up the 2nd mortgage to the bond company. If the victim D knew of this, it would have not agreed to terminate the 2nd mortgage on the 2nd mortgage. Thus, if the victim D's 2nd mortgage is set up Epent, it would be difficult to grant a loan from the bond company if the victim D's 3rd mortgage was set up.

arrow