(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.01.31 2017노506 | 리걸엔진

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) 춘천지방법원 2018.01.31 2017노506

사기

Text

The judgment below

Among them, the part on the fraud by around January 2010 and the fraud by around March 2010 is reversed.

Defendant .

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. In relation to the motive for lending money, the lower court determined as to the “whether the Defendant had the intent and ability to have the Defendant receive an electrical construction by carrying out the instant project and construction,” but, inasmuch as there was an agreement with the Defendant to return the principal to the victim, there was an error of hearing failure to determine whether the Defendant had the intent or ability to return the loan, and in particular, with respect to the loan of KRW 100 million on July 23, 2009, the Defendant was unable to perform the construction with his own ability, and even in the situation where there was no choice but to prepare operating expenses by borrowing money from several persons, the lower court would have made payment by October 30, 2009.

Therefore, in relation to the loan of KRW 45 million on January 15, 2010, and KRW 115 million on March 9, 2010, the defendant used the borrowed money for any purpose other than the original purpose, and even if the seizure established on the land of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "F"), there are various other seizures, and the defendant's intent to acquire it can be recognized in consideration of the defendant's default of national taxes, etc.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below as to the argument on the failure to examine the case is that the defendant had the idea to pay the borrowed money at the time of borrowing the PF loan and could have expected the normal progress of the project, and that the criminal intent of defraudation was not denied, and that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be recognized as the criminal intent of defraudation. As long as there is a prosecutor's responsibility to prove the facts charged, there is an error of incomplete deliberation in the judgment of the court below.

subsection (b) of this section.

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

B. On July 23, 2009, judgment on the assertion on the one’s own loan 1) the victim’s property disposal act or such property disposal act is made.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2019.09.25 2018노2176

-인천지방법원 2018.10.24 2018노1773

-서울남부지방법원 2015.12.11 2015노233

-대전지방법원 2016.04.21 2015노1969

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.20 2017노2513