(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.05.23 2013노2904 | 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) 인천지방법원 2014.05.23 2013노2904

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall notify the summary of the judgment on the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal in the instant facts charged does not mean that the Defendant borrowed to F or D two of the three cases of collateral security in the name of the I Bank, which was established on the instant real estate, in the name of F or D, as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the F's testimony, etc. guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On July 23, 2009, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that “G Loan offices operated by F in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, the Defendant created a collateral security right on D through F, “G Loan offices, Ha, Gowon-gun, H, and the creditor I Bank established and created the collateral security right on nine parcels, and borrowed two out of three collateral security offices established and established by the creditor I Bank in the said real estate.”

In fact, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to cancel two of the three cases of collateral security in the name of the I Bank, which was established on the above real estate.

On July 23, 2009, the Defendant, by deceiving D as above, received KRW 123 million from D as the borrowed money and acquired it by deceiving D.

3. The lower court’s determination: (a) the Defendant made a statement to the effect that the Defendant “F” under this law and investigative agency on the condition of borrowing the two above collateral mortgages; (b) the Defendant made a statement to the effect that the content of the statement is very specific, consistent, and objective rationality is not found; (c) the JB, which performed with F, made a statement to the effect that it conforms to the above statements at this law and investigative agency; (c) the content of the statement is very specific and consistent; and (d) the F written request for loan application (Evidence 16 pages) presented to D at the time of borrowing, stating that the maximum debt amount of the collateral security on each of the above lands is KRW 450,000,000,000; and (d) the F appears to have been written on the premise that each of the above collateral security two cases was cancelled; and

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2013.09.26 2013고단675

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.07.10 2018가단67681

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.29 2019가단5152534

-부산지방법원 2017.11.14 2016가단71347

-수원지방법원 2013.05.30 2012고단6094