(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.05.18 2016노2264 | 리걸엔진

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) 광주지방법원 2017.05.18 2016노2264

사기

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, the aggrieved party was aware of the fact that the Defendant used the borrowed money for gambling, so there was no deception from the victim, and at the time of the next use, the Defendant had the intent to repay and the ability to repay.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of eight million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, ① the victim, as consistently stated in the facts charged from the police to the court of the lower court, acquired 40,80 million won deposited by the victim for a simple type operation through 12 times due to the Defendant’s deception, such as the record of the facts charged, from

As the statement is made, the contents of the statement are specific and detailed, and ② the victim did not think that he would use the money borrowed as money for gambling although there was a doubtful circumstance about the defendant's gambling.

(3) The Defendant is making a statement that there is property, such as rental deposit, premium, etc., while operating a singing room.

However, the Defendant, as a person of bad credit standing, was in the name of F, was in the name of F, was used for lending the F’s account, and there was no property that may be deemed as the Defendant’s responsible property, such as the place of residence and the name of friendship, and thus, had the intent to perform the obligation and repayment to the Defendant.

(4) It is difficult to see that the property which is the object of fraud does not necessarily mean that the private law is protected (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2991 delivered on October 23, 2001). Thus, even if the injured party knew that he was using the borrowed money in gambling, the injured party was using the borrowed money.

Even if the defendant did not have the ability and intention to change it, it is recognized that there is no obstacle to the establishment of fraud.

참조판례

-대법원 2001. 10. 23. 선고 2001도2991 판결

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2017.10.27 2017고단1127

-전주지방법원 남원지원 2019.01.22 2018고단191

-대전지방법원 2015.04.09 2014노2232

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.06.18 2017고정537

-부산지방법원 2016.09.30 2016노2017