(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.10.26 2017노1327

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) 서울북부지방법원 2017.10.26 2017노1327

사기등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the part of fraud that caused mistake of facts, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, although the victim was physically and mentally unable to engage in property transactions at the time of lending KRW 10 million to the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended execution) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

A. (1) On August 31, 2015, the summary of the facts charged in the charge of not guilty portion: (a) the Defendant, despite having a mental and physical disorder, such as blood transfusion and suffering from stimulic dementia due to an accident, he/she was unable to repay the loan to the victim despite having no ability to pay the loan from the victim’s G with mental and physical disorder due to an accident; (b) the Defendant made a false statement with the victim “a request to lend 10 million won as the director cost is required”; and (c) the Defendant acquired the aforementioned victim’s share of KRW 10 million with the loan borrowed from the said victim.

(2) The lower court determined that the victim’s statement that the victim was unable to properly determine due to dementia, which was the after-accident of the said accident, at the time of lending (hereinafter “lease”) around August 31, 2015 (hereinafter “the aforementioned lending”) was not prepared by the Defendant, but the victim specifically memorys the Defendant that he/she lent the loan under his/her house name even though he/she did not prepare the loan certificate at the time, and it is difficult to believe it as it is in light of the circumstances where the Defendant subsequently requested repayment. The Defendant was judged as Grade 6 of the mental disorder on March 9, 2016, and the Defendant was diagnosed as having disability and friendly diagnosis on April 29, 2016. However, in light of the degree and content of the above grade, the above determination and diagnosis alone cannot be said to have a mental and physical condition of the victim’s property at the time of the lending.

It is difficult to conclude.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2014.01.10 2013고정878

-부산지방법원 2014.06.13 2014노367

-제주지방법원 2019.01.16 2018나12728

-광주지방법원 2017.12.22 2017나52763

-전주지방법원 2017.11.10 2017고정508