logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.07.11 2018노243
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, although the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant acquired the borrowed money by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts

2. Determination

A. On February 4, 2016, the summary of the facts charged stated that “The Defendant sent a phone call to the victim D and paid off without any mold because he/she had an urgent amount of money, and there is a place to make a big profit if invested.”

However, in fact, the defendant did not have any means to make a large profit, so even if he borrowed money from the injured party, he did not have any intent or ability to make a full payment.

The Defendant received 15 million won from the damaged person to E’s account in the name of the same day as the borrowed money, and received 30 million won from the said account in the same manner around February 28, 2016.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

B. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, acquitted the Defendant on the instant facts charged for the following reasons.

1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, there is room to view that the Defendant borrowed money from the damaged party at F’s end, and that the Defendant knowingly borrowed money from the damaged party despite the Defendant’s payment to F of the borrowed money.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

Therefore, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone that the defendant had the intention to deceive the victim at the time of borrowing the instant loan.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

① The Defendant received KRW 15 million from the injured party on February 4, 2016, and the Defendant was designated by F from February 4, 2016 to February 5, 2016 to G, H, I, I, and J. 1,25 million.

arrow