(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.16 2016노4758

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.16 2016노4758

사기

Text

Defendant

B All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The evidence of the court below alone, as stated in the facts charged, that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to deception the victim and defrauded Defendant B with 40 million won as loan expenses.

Although this part of the facts charged cannot be seen, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. According to the prosecutor (Defendant A)’s statement, etc. at the investigative agency of the victim of the misunderstanding of the facts, although the defendant A could have borrowed 14 million won from the damaged person under the name of issuing a certificate of full payment of value-added tax, and acquired it by deceit, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (4 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found Defendant B guilty on the ground that, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, Defendant B conspired with Defendant A to deception of money by deceiving the victim, the lower court convicted Defendant B.

① Defendant A provided a victim with a substitute for a commercial building owned by K (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) as a security and offered a loan from a bank to the victim, thereby allowing the victim to use KRW 150 million among the loans.

The purpose was to say that the payment of KRW 40 million is changed as security expenses.

② The victim accepted this and delivered to the victim a written agreement to the effect that the victim received KRW 40 million from the injured party, and Defendant B received the payment of KRW 40 million from the injured party on the job, and that the victim “where it is impossible to grant a bank loan, Defendant B shall refund KRW 40 million to the injured party.”

③ Even by the statement of the Defendants, the Defendants are subject to the statement.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2017.11.02 2017노603

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2015.10.21 2015고단813

-대전지방법원 2018.10.25 2018노534

-서울고등법원 2017.04.26 2016노3547

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.29 2015노902