(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.01.12 2017노1840

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.01.12 2017노1840

성매매알선등행위의처벌에관한법률위반(성매매알선등)등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s mistake (as to Defendant 1’s fraud on December 8, 2014), the Defendant, at the time of borrowing KRW 20 million, did not request the victim to lend the operating expenses for the Marina business, but did not request the funds to be used for the “YY”. The Defendant was unable to receive the refund of the lease deposit due to unexpected circumstances in order to recover the lease deposit from the victim to repay the money borrowed from the victim. As such, the Defendant was not guilty of deceiving the victim and did not intend to commit fraud.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment and fine of twenty million won) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the fact that a prosecutor (as to the fraud of June 27, 2014) was refunded KRW 60 million from N and consumed for gambling funds without paying to the victim, the Defendant concealed the fact that he was returned KRW 60 million for more than 10 months, and the Defendant’s business establishment at the time of borrowing money was in a situation where it was unable to continue to operate the money, and there was no other specific income or property, it is recognized that the Defendant by deceiving the victim as indicated in this part of the facts charged, thereby deceiving the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged.

2. The prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts is found to be earlier than the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, and thus, in order.

A. The lower court determined as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts (i.e., fraud of KRW 60 million on June 27, 2014), based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, as follows: (i) the Defendant has invested KRW 60,000,000 that was delivered by the injured party in a “AO” business establishment; (ii) paid monthly interest as promised by April 2015; (iii) the Defendant terminated a business relationship with NN and paid a dividend of KRW 60,000 and up to that point.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.04.27 2016노4651

-서울남부지방법원 2018.05.15 2017노686

-서울동부지방법원 2017.08.25 2017노228

-대전지방법원 2016.08.24 2016노1167

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.20 2017노2482