(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.05.12 2015노1686

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) 서울서부지방법원 2016.05.12 2015노1686

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The order for compensation by the court below shall be revoked.

The request of the applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, in collusion with the wife F (former E) and transferred to the Credit Guarantee Fund in collusion, to the victim C the entire rent deposit transferred to the Fund.

It shall not be true that he/she acquires 85 million won from the injured person by fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Since victims of a compensation order enter the list of creditors of a personal rehabilitation case against the accused, the compensation order against the victim shall be dismissed.

2. Determination

A. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the following circumstances acknowledged by K’s legal statement as to the assertion of factual mistake, namely, the father of the victim, at the police and the lower court’s court’s court, and at the police and the lower court’s court, K’s mother, the injured party’s mother, tried to return the security deposit to the injured party after the lapse of the lease period on October 2013, 2013 by each Defendant’s wife F, the injured party’s wife, from around October 2013 to the injured party, are resolved.

trust deposit to the defendant and to believe that such deposit was paid

On April 30, 2009, K consistently stated that the notice of transfer of the lease deposit sent by the Credit Guarantee Fund in the name of the Defendant was received by the Defendant, and on April 30, 2009, K received the notice of transfer of the lease deposit to the Credit Guarantee Fund. The above notice of transfer of the lease deposit stated that “the obligation to return the lease deposit of KRW 85 million is transferred to the Credit Guarantee Fund to the transferee of the lease deposit.” If the victim knew that the transfer of the lease deposit to the Credit Guarantee Fund is valid as it is, it is obvious that the Defendant would not pay the lease deposit amount of KRW 85 million to the Defendant in light of the empirical rule, and the Defendant directly entered into the contract with the Credit Guarantee Fund as the transferor transferring the lease deposit to the victim.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.01.12 2015고단3605

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.06.21 2017고단1295

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.09 2016고정2120

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.17 2015고단4811

-서울서부지방법원 2017.06.16 2016고단553