logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.01.24 2017노3594
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding ① The Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, performed molding construction works on the 3,363 square meters of HH-si Haju (hereinafter “the instant land”) to the victim F at the time of the instant crime, and performed a warehouse on the instant land, etc., the Agricultural Policy Fund was generated. The payment of construction cost was made as the aforementioned funds was made; ② the filing of an application for voluntary auction by the NongHyup Bank, the NongHyup Bank, the party of the instant land, was not the interest in arrears after the purchase of the instant land, but the interest in arrears was not due to the interest in arrears, and ③ there was considerable real estate at the time, the Defendant did not acquire the instant land, etc. and was not paid the agricultural policy fund, and thus, the Defendant was not able and able to pay the construction cost at the time of the instant crime.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, by deceiving the victim even though he did not have the intent and ability to pay the construction cost, thereby deceiving the victim, thereby taking property benefits equivalent to the construction cost

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(1) A victim entered into a contract for construction works on the instant land with the Defendant around October 10, 2015, and completed construction works around November 10, 2015. The construction cost under the construction contract entered into between the Defendant and the victim is all within one month after the completion of the construction works.

arrow