logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.10.19 2017노955
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant had the intent and ability to make a payment at the time of the transaction with the species Papex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”). However, the Defendant did not receive the original set or original set of money from the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. that the Defendant supplied the original set of money by the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) and did not pay the victim Co., Ltd. with the original set of money. The Defendant was aware of the Defendant Co., Ltd., and thus did not have the intent to commit deception and fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or legal principles, should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime unless the Defendant makes a confession. The criminal intent is not definite intention but dolusive intention. In particular, the establishment of fraud through deception in the transaction of goods is determined by whether there was an intentional intent to acquire goods, etc. from the damaged person by making a false statement as if the Defendant would have performed the payment of the goods to the victim even though there was no intention or ability to repay the goods to the victim as at the time of the transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do375, Nov. 27, 2014). In light of the above legal principles, the instant case is health zone in light of the foregoing legal principles, and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant’s liabilities at the time were in excess of the capital status of the Defendant or the said C company.

arrow