logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.04.23 2019노5864
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fraud on September 13, 2017, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant anticipated that he/she would be able to receive the insurance money for the mother’s cancer diagnosis as stated in this part of the facts charged. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was an intention to defraud the Defendant. Nevertheless, the judgment of the first instance court that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) On October 2017, when the Defendant borrowed money from D as stated in this part of the facts charged, he/she would have purchased the vehicle owned by the Defendant and would have been able to repay the said money with the payment.

Nevertheless, it is because the defendant could not pay the above money because D promises to promise and did not cancel the mortgage created on the vehicle owned by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged cannot be viewed as the defendant's intentional acquisition.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the first instance court that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged also erred by mistake of facts.

B. The sentence of imprisonment with labor for eight months, suspension of execution of two years, and 200 hours of community service order) of the judgment of the court of first instance on the accused of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the fraud on September 13, 2017, the first instance court duly adopted and investigated the following circumstances, namely, ① the insurance money that the Defendant thought to be entitled to receive was under the name of the mother of the Defendant, not under the name of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant did not have the right to dispose of the insurance money. ② Even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant properly examined the basic information on the insurance money, such as the time when receiving the said insurance money or the amount thereof, at the time of borrowing money from D, as described in the facts charged.

arrow