logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.26 2016노2083
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 70 million won, which was remitted by the victim of misunderstanding of facts to G’s account, is only a transaction between the victim and G, and the Defendant did not talk with the victim as stated in the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had the victim talked with the victim as stated in the facts charged and remitted money to G.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is rejected.

1) As to the circumstances in which G lent money to the Defendant, the reason why G lent money to the Defendant is within 2-3 months from the loan of the gambling fund.

I want to lend money and divide profits.

The statement is consistently and consistently made.

However, considering that G’s statement as above, “if it states that it was made with gambling money, it may cause damage to the ships thereafter,” the G’s statement on the background of borrowing money is highly reliable.

2) The aggrieved person transferred money from the Defendant to an account in which the Defendant heard the same talk as that stated in the facts charged and the Defendant informed.

Alternatively, the statements are consistently made.

3) The statement between the victim and G is consistent with the fact that the victim received a mutual introduction after lending money.

In addition, the victim may twice the defendant's investment of KRW 90 million within one month, and the rest of the defendant's investment of KRW 70 million after making up for the defendant's investment of KRW 15 million.

G made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant was asked by the victim.” The G also made a statement to the effect that he was 15 million won.

arrow