logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.01.19 2016노1268
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of the consistent statement of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) and the Defendant’s own ability at the time of the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that the Defendant deceivings the victim without intent or ability to repay the borrowed money, and thereby, acquitted the Defendant.

2. The Defendant, in the facts charged, was operated by the Defendant at the time of the casino casino located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

A Cub car was not owned by the Defendant, and even if it was not sufficient to pay a fine of KRW 6 million due to the failure to pay a fine of KRW 6 million, and thus borrowed money from the Victim F (G), it did not have the ability or intent to pay the money, the Cub car will be repaid from the loan of money.

The car will be offered as security to the owner of the vehicle within the territory of the Gu.

On November 23, 2014, 2014, the victim made a cash loan certificate, a vehicle storage certificate, a vehicle abandonment letter, etc. to the victim on the security of the siren H, a siren, and acquired it by obtaining KRW 21.2 million from the damaged person.

3. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment 1) The burden of proving the facts constituting an offense charged in a criminal trial lies with the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the Defendant’s guilt, it is inevitable to determine the Defendant’s interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7261, Nov. 10, 201). However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor alone, as stated in the instant facts charged, is sufficient to mislead the victim or to repay borrowed money, as stated in the instant facts charged.

arrow