(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.04.03 2014노1774

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) 서울동부지방법원 2015.04.03 2014노1774

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, fraud was made on April 25, 2006.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The money listed in the table of crime inundation 1 in the judgment of the court below is the money borrowed by G, not the defendant, from the victim. 2) The money listed in the table of crime inundation 2 in the judgment of the court below is the money borrowed by J, not the defendant, from the victim.

3) Although the Defendant borrowed the money from the victim as stated in the list of crimes Nos. 3 through 20 in the judgment below, the victim is a person who is well aware of the real estate execution business, such as taking the chairman of the apartment reconstruction promotion committee while engaging in real estate rental business, and the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, and used this part of the money as expenses for carrying out the business not for personal use, so there was no criminal intent to acquire the Defendant. (b) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (a 3 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment on the part of the amount listed in No. 1 of the crime sight table in the holding of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that ① the Defendant is a company E (hereinafter “instant company”) prior to the execution of real estate project, and that the Defendant is a “stock company E” (hereinafter “instant company”).

(3) The court below held that the Defendant could have borrowed this part of the money from the victim, on the ground that: (a) the Defendant received an investment from G to return the N’s investment money at that time; (b) the Defendant used most of the investment money from G as the actual representative director of the instant company; and (c) U who requested the return of the investment money from G to repay the money to G; and (b) the Defendant promised to pay the said loan to U at the time of lending the money to U.S.; and (c) the Defendant could have recognized that the Defendant borrowed the money from the victim.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2013.07.12 2013노301

-서울북부지방법원 2014.10.08 2014노414

-서울고등법원 2015.02.04 2012노2933

-서울고등법원 2019.12.06 2019노1795

-서울동부지방법원 2013.04.26 2012노1378