logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.10.17 2013노2664
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The prosecutor charged the Defendant with each of the frauds referred to in Articles 2011-Ma4590 and 2012-Ma2480 of this Court. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the frauds referred to in Article 2011-Ma4590 of the instant facts charged and acquitted the Defendant with respect to each of the frauds referred to in Article 2012-Ma2480 of the instant facts charged.

However, since the appeal against the non-guilty portion by the prosecutor is finalized and the defendant did not appeal, the scope of the trial of the court shall be limited to the non-guilty portion.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Even according to the contents of the statement of the president of U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”) and the official letter exchanged between U and P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “P”), it is unclear whether the Defendant is entitled to receive operating funds from U as agreed upon by the contract, and the Defendant’s monthly overdue payment was delayed due to the lack of good condition of P in the Defendant’s management. In light of the above, it is recognized that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay money from the victim at the time of borrowing money.

In addition, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the charges that he borrowed money from the victim while recognizing the criminal intent to acquire money with respect to the case of 2011 Highest 4590 cases, is contrary to the experience and logic.

B. The Defendant was liable for 1.1 billion won in total under the name of the investment deposit, and thus, did not have the ability to pay 12% annual profits agreed upon even if the Defendant received the said money from the victim as the amount of credit bad at the time. Unlike the victim’s notice, the Defendant lent the said money to T without using it as the acquisition fund for S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S”), and the Defendant lent KRW 200 million received from the victim to T, and then returned KRW 50 million among them.

arrow