logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.31 2018노3783
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not deceiving the victim to make an investment in a charnel project with the money received from the victim, and only paid interest by borrowing money from the victim.

At the time of borrowing, the Defendant had a claim against L/K at the time of borrowing, and thus, there was no intention to obtain money from the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant had the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s determination of mistake, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by providing a detailed statement on the Defendant’s assertion and its judgment in detail.

In addition to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified, taking into account the following facts and circumstances as a whole, which are admitted by the court below.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

① The Defendant asserts that it is a simple loan relationship based on a notarial deed of a loan for consumption of fake money in the amount of KRW 80 million, written on October 14, 2016.

The above notarial deed contains only the principal and payment period, but does not state any agreement on interest, and the amount received by the defendant from the victim until the above notarial deed is prepared shall not be in accord with the principal on the above notarial deed as total amount of KRW 94 million, and the amount paid by the defendant as profit to the victim as total of KRW 37360,000.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the above notarial deed is true in legal relations between the defendant and the victim.

② The Defendant asserts that he had claims against L/K at the time of borrowing, and thus, he was sufficiently able to repay.

There is evidence that the defendant has a claim against L, each of the testimony of the court below and L/C preparation (Evidence record 269, 270 pages).

arrow