logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.01.18 2018노1419
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is that the Defendant borrowed 5.3 million won from the victim under the name of the transfer of the name after the maturity of the siren vehicle accompanying the victim. However, the Defendant borrowed the above money, and there was no fact that the Defendant stated that the Defendant would transfer the F apartment remodeling total right to the victim as stated in the criminal facts, and the Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the money borrowed from a dance hall at the time of the operation of the dance hall.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. The Defendant in the judgment of the court below against the grounds for appeal is denying the confession of all the facts constituting the crime of this case in the judgment below.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim stated in the investigative agency that "The victim believed that "the defendant may exercise the total right to remodel the F apartment," and consistently stated that 5.3 million won was lent to the defendant for the transfer of the name of the siren vehicle. ② On the other hand, the defendant first stated in the investigative agency that "the defendant introduced the victim as a person who operates the dance hall operated by the defendant instead of the dance hall, and did not make the statement to the effect that "the defendant has the total right to remodel the F apartment or can transfer it to the victim" (Evidence No. 35-36 pages of the evidence record). The defendant's statement that "the victim may transfer the total right to remodel the F apartment to the victim through NO's chairperson (Evidence No. 59-63 pages of the evidence record), the defendant's statement that the whole amount of the defendant's statement fell below credibility, ③ the defendant's non-chairperson's right to remodel the F apartment, etc. (Evidence No. 1 to 360-1654, etc.).

arrow