logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.08.27 2015노529
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As indicated in the judgment of the court below, there is no fact that the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, did not intend to obtain a loan from the victim (hereinafter “instant loan”), and there is no fact that the Defendant proposes to borrow money by selling it to another person or offering it as security after obtaining a loan from the victim who has no intention to use the vehicle (hereinafter “instant loan”).

However, the Defendant, as a secondhand sales broker, arranged the purchase of the instant vehicle to D, prepared all the documents necessary for the instant loan, and submitted the instant vehicle to D and transferred the instant vehicle to D. However, the Defendant performed his/her duties by transferring the instant vehicle to D. However, the damage was only caused by negligence by the victim who did not establish the right to collateral security on the instant vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant did not defraud money from the victim by deceiving I who is an employee of the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) First of all, we examine whether the Defendant conspired with two aforementioned Brazils to purchase the instant vehicle, and then suggest D to offer money by selling it to others or offering it as security after allowing D to purchase the instant vehicle.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the Defendant was unable to find out any trace of contact with two Brokers prior to the brokerage of the instant vehicle and the instant loan; ② D also stated that it was not true that it would be possible to purchase the instant vehicle directly from the Defendant, and that D would offer money by selling it or offering it as collateral after the purchase of the instant vehicle, and ③ the Defendant stated that D did not have the instant vehicle.

arrow