logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.11.17 2017노573
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In full view of the fact that the account books concerning the details of payment of interest submitted by the defendant on the summary of the grounds of appeal are unlikely to recognize credibility because the account books contain the possibility of manipulating them in copies, the victim consistently asserts that there was no payment of interest from the defendant at all, and D also stated that there was no payment of interest from the defendant to the victim, and that payment of interest only in cash is contrary to the empirical rule, etc., the defendant did not have any fact that he has paid all interest to the victim. Thus, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the fact that the defendant obtained 7 million won from the damaged person without the intent or ability to repay and acquired 7 million won from the injured person without the intention or ability, but it

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to repay the money despite borrowing the money from the victim C.

Nevertheless, on April 18, 2014, the Defendant found the Victim C’s house and concluded that “The Defendant would have repaid KRW 5 million after three months from the loan of KRW 5 million due to paid-in circumstances,” and received KRW 5 million from the injured party’s house on November 11, 2014, and provided that “The Defendant would have repaid KRW 8 million after one month, including the loan of KRW 5 million and interest, before and after the loan of KRW 2 million,” and received KRW 2 million from the injured party.

As a result, the defendant received 7 million won from the injured party without intention or ability to repay, and received 7 million won or more from the injured party, thereby taking property benefits equivalent to the same amount.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, the lower court’s judgment is reasonable doubt as to the fact that the evidence submitted by the prosecution alone had the criminal intent of deceiving or deceiving the Defendant.

arrow