logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.19 2014노2255
사기
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A) as to the fraud of KRW 236 million against the victim F, the Defendant introduced the victim to K at the request of K, the owner of the two lands outside both cities (hereinafter the instant land) and intended to use the funds borrowed from the victim for the costs related to the instant land and repaid by K. As such, the Defendant only used all the funds received from the victim for the benefit of K, there is no fact that the Defendant deceiving the victim or acquired the money from the victim.

With respect to the fraud of Doshed Victim N, the Defendant received KRW 1700 out of the borrowed money from the victim under any circumstance that he/she was aware that he/she borrowed money from the victim B, and thereafter shows the certificate of deposit to the victim, and there is no fact that the Defendant made a false statement to the victim or obtained money from the victim.

B. The sentencing of each court of the first instance on the Defendants (Defendant A’s imprisonment and June, and Defendant B’s imprisonment and eight months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court on March 23, 2007 as to Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant did not have any particular property or profit after having been released from the Defendant’s prison on March 23, 2007. In addition, there was no objective circumstance to deem that at the time the instant land was able to be loaned to a financial institution with a KRW 5 billion as security, and there was only an external form of a loan between K and K as if the Defendant did not contribute to the purchase price of the instant land at all, and the Defendant was to prepare a sales contract on the instant land with the intent to obtain a loan from a financial institution as security. Thus, even if having borrowed money from the victim, the Defendant was to make a sales contract on the instant land as a purchaser.

arrow