(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.05.26 2015노1628 | 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) 대구지방법원 2016.05.26 2015노1628

사기

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant intends to take over a hotel (hereinafter “the hotel of this case”) to the victim D at the C attorney-at-law office in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around November 7, 2012, the Defendant would make it possible for the victim to take over the hotel (hereinafter “the hotel of this case”). However, due to the shortage of acquisition funds, the Defendant would pay 150 million won to the victim within three months, and if he/she takes over the hotel, he/she would have the hotel be awarded a contract for remodeling works.

“A false representation was made.”

However, the defendant purchased the above hotel and did not have the intention or ability to execute the remodelling contract to the victim, and even if he received the above money from the injured party, he did not have the intention or ability to pay it.

On November 8, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 150 million from the damaged party to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant on November 8, 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 did not borrow KRW 150 million from the injured party, but the Defendant contracted to remodel the hotel of this case on the part of the injured party, and exchanged KRW 150 million by exchanging KRW 150 million from F to the injured party the claim for the agreed amount of KRW 150 million that the Defendant would receive from the Defendant. While the injured party entered into a remodeling contract with the injured party, the injured party was actually unable to submit the certificate of performance guarantee to the Defendant as agreed, the lower court held that the Defendant had the scope of the acquisition.

The facts were cited.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, the Defendant indicated in its reasoning; and (b) the Defendant.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 상주지원 2015.04.14 2014고단579

-서울동부지방법원 2016.05.12 2016고단69

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.24 2015고단4764 (1)

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2016.02.18 2014고단2468

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.11.08 2017고단146