logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.01 2017노7289
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant misunderstanding of facts helps a third party to obtain a loan without any legal problem.

On the other hand, in relation to the purchase of a passenger vehicle as indicated in the facts charged of the instant case (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”), documents necessary for obtaining a loan of KRW 17 million from the injured party (hereinafter “the instant loan”) have been affixed with a signature or seal, and C was unaware of the fact that it was to receive the instant loan without the intention to operate the instant vehicle.

The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative and passive acts that have to observe each other in the transactional relationship with property, and therefore, it is sufficient to say that the deception does not necessarily mean false representation as to the important part of the juristic act, and it is the fact that is the basis of judgment in order for the actor to take a disposition of property which he wishes by omitting the other party into mistake. Thus, in a case where it is recognized that the other party to the transaction would not have been engaged in the transaction if he was notified of certain circumstances, he has a duty to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance in accordance with the principle of good faith. Nevertheless, the failure to notify the other party of the fact that the transaction would not have been notified, thereby deceiving the other party, thereby constituting fraud (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7828, Apr. 9, 2004). Meanwhile, the criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective element of fraud, constitutes fraud.

arrow