logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.12 2019노3761
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the grounds for appeal, mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the defendant did not deception the victims as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, and did not have intention

The punishment sentenced by the court below of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly examined by the court below as to the victim D’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, had the intention or ability to pay the victim money from the victim to the agreed date, and that the Defendant had the intention to defraud the victim.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

The statements made by the victim on each deception of the defendant are specific and consistent.

The content of the lower court’s e-mail, 2018Kadan813 case, 2013, 114, 202, 21, and 21 of the evidence records, sent by the Defendant, as well as 2, 116 of the evidence records of the e-mail case, sent by the Defendant, also support the victim’s statement.

On January 2008, the defendant borrowed a total of KRW 130 million from the victim and claimed that the victim was a financial consulting contract equivalent to KRW 70 billion, which is called the victim, has not been properly implemented between J and AI Co., Ltd., and the implementation thereof was extremely inappropriate.

The defendant also stated to the effect that the prosecution recognizes the deception as a substitute or the consulting contract is expected to be carried out smoothly without any specific grounds.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly examined by the lower court in Q Q, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, as stated in the lower judgment, had attempted to repay money from the victim to the agreed date, and that there was the intent to deceive the victim and the Defendant.

arrow