(영문) 부산지방법원 2019.10.18 2018노3948 | 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) 부산지방법원 2019.10.18 2018노3948

사기

Text

All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Reasons

1. The first instance judgment dismissed the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and since the applicant for compensation cannot file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the above application for compensation became final and conclusive immediately. Thus, the part of the first instance judgment dismissing the above application for compensation in the first instance judgment shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to B’s fraud (2017Dadan2630 case), the Defendant received KRW 111,243,00 from B as the price for the health care institution, but the Defendant supplied the health care institution equivalent to KRW 71,110,000 to B. As to the above supply price of KRW 70,11 million, there is no causal relationship between the Defendant’s deception and B’s disposal, and there is no intent to commit fraud (2) against J (2) with regard to fraud (2) with the intent to commit fraud (2). The Defendant did not falsely notify the J of the purpose of the borrowed money. As long as the Defendant had been under a plan to repay his/her obligation through a loan or a business loan from a third party, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had a legal obligation to notify the Defendant’s assets and liabilities to the J.

Therefore, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed deception, and in light of the fact that the Defendant paid interest to J for a considerable period after the loan in this case, it cannot be deemed that there is a criminal intent to obtain fraud from the Defendant.

Moreover, as the Defendant fully repaid the respective loans set forth in Nos. 2 and 4 of the annexed Table 2 to J within several months from the date of borrowing, the Defendant cannot be recognized as the criminal intent of defraudation in this part.

3) As to the fraud against AC (2018 Highest 2602 case), the Defendant was merely aware of AF as a lender, and the Defendant was unaware of the lender, and was falsely notified AC of the purpose of the loan.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제32조 제4항

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2021.04.29 2020노1076

-서울고등법원 2015.09.11 2015노716

-대구지방법원 2020.11.10 2020고단3297

-창원지방법원 2015.05.13 2015노162

-부산지방법원 2016.01.22 2015노2882