(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.05.29 2019노1523

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) 서울동부지방법원 2020.05.29 2019노1523

사기등

Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The judgment below

Part of acquittal.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) by mistake of facts, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on a different premise, even though the defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim of the lease deposit amount of KRW 29.5 million, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and four months of imprisonment) on the grounds that the sentence is too uneasible and unfair.

B. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts (as to the forgery of private documents, the uttering of a falsified investigation document, and the fraud of loans from six lending companies), the Defendant did not prepare and submit a document under the name of the victim to the lending company as stated in this part of the facts charged, and did not obtain the loan from the lending company in the name of the victim, and the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of this part

The defendant argued of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the fraud of the victim C Bank loans, but withdrawn this part on the third trial of the trial of the party.

(2) The above sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On April 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “In the instant apartment house Jho-ho (hereinafter “the instant apartment house”) is leased KRW 20 million, monthly rent, and KRW 700,000,000,000,000 to the victim B, and the loan interest is to be paid as a security deposit,” in the judgment of the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts.

However, even if the defendant receives the security deposit, he was planned to use the security deposit as living expenses without paying interest, and was planned to pay the security deposit to the victim because he/she has no intention or ability to return the security deposit after the termination

The defendant deceivings the victim as such, and is also against the victim.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2013.10.24 2013노1210

-서울동부지방법원 2014.02.20 2013노1086

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.16 2020노2018

-서울고등법원 2016.11.17 2016노2065

-수원지방법원 2012.11.29 2012노4046