(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.10.22 2014노2274 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전지방법원 2015.10.22 2014노2274

사기등

Text

The judgment of the court of first instance except for compensation order and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

Of the judgment of the court of first instance on the misunderstanding of facts, L, which argues that L, which states that L had an implied approval of L with respect to the case, had been aware that the Defendant had entered into a lease contract on the "M building" located in Daejeon-gu I (hereinafter "the instant building") by using his/her own seal, but has impliedly affixed it. The preparation of the lease contract by the date of the approval of L, at least by the date of the implied approval of L, was made under L, and thus, the preparation of the lease contract by the date of 2012 recognizing L was made under L's implied approval. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged, is erroneous

The claim L on the forgery of private documents, the uttering of a falsified investigation document, and the fraud (the corresponding part in the attached Table 1 and 3) related to the pre-sale contract prepared with X includes the three parts of the pre-sale contract that were acquired by the Defendant from the Defendant around April 9, 2010. Since the victim X deposited the lease deposit into the account in the name of L, it shall be deemed that L was approved for the preparation of this part of the pre-sale contract, and since L is obligated to return the amount equivalent to this part of the lease deposit for the victim X, it shall not be deemed that the Defendant acquired it, the judgment below convicting the Defendant of each charge is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

The defendant alleged the fraud of the victim R (the corresponding part in No. 3 No. 2 of the List of Offenses in the attached Table 2) explained to the victim R that the owner of the instant building was not himself/herself but L, and also entered L's Handphone number and office telephone number at the time of the preparation of the lease contract, and R made a direct telephone conversation with L to confirm the owner.

Nevertheless, as the defendant is the owner of L, the lease deposit is made.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.11.03 2015나2064429

-광주지방법원 2015.11.11 2015노2400

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2014.01.07 2013고정580

-서울동부지방법원 2014.07.18 2014노19

-수원지방법원 2019.02.14 2017고단4894