logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.05.16 2014노60
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) considering the fact that the defendant suggested that he borrowed money from A, who was the victim at the time, to whom he had come, and that A borrowed money from D; (b) the defendant entered the loan certificate as a joint guarantor; (c) used part of the money acquired from D as a joint guarantor; and (d) the defendant borrowed money from D with A before the crime of this case is committed, the defendant borrowed money from A, the court below acquitted the defendant, even though it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant acquired money by deceiving D in collusion with A, as recorded in the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the Defendant is a bad credit holder, and he did not own property under his name, and when the bonds cannot be repaid with 10 million won, he borrowed money from his male-child job offering A, and A had a mind to lend money to his own male-child job offering A, and A had a mind to lend money to his victim D.

On January 20, 2010, A made a false statement to the effect that “A would have been repaid within 1 to 2 weeks if he/she borrowed 20 million won as he/she has immediately used the phone to the victim at an influence place.”

However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any particular property, and the amount of monthly interest was higher than 50 million won, and as a bank loan was equivalent to 160 million won, A did not have any intent or ability to repay the loan within 1 to 2 weeks, even if it received the money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, in collusion with A, was accused of the victim as above, and was remitted 20 million won to the bank account in the name of A by the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant conspireds with A to obtain 20 million won from the victim.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) hear the statement that A requires urgent money from a female-friendly job offering Defendant; and (b) January 201, 201.

arrow