(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.12 2014노5271

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.12 2014노5271

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant paid to the victims a considerable amount of money in relation to the instant guidance or under the pretext of ex post facto repayment of damage, and in addition, the victim F transferred the Defendant’s claim amounting to KRW 17 million against J and waived the Defendant’s claim amounting to KRW 8.7 million against J.

Therefore, the amount of damage caused by the instant crime is only KRW 41.6 million for the victim D, KRW 27 million for the victim E, and KRW 0 for the victim F.

B. The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of fraud involving the deception of money for the determination of mistake, if there is a delivery of money due to deception, the crime of fraud is established by itself as an infringement on the victim’s property, and a considerable amount of money has been paid.

shall not cause any damage to the entire property of the victim.

Even if the crime of fraud does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud, even if some of the proceeds are paid, the amount obtained by the fraud is not the difference between the amount given from the victim and the amount obtained by deducting the proceeds.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7470 Decided January 25, 2007, etc.). In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant acquired the amount from the victims as stated in the judgment of the court below, and as long as the crime of fraud is established due to the acquisition of the money by deceiving the victims, he paid a certain amount of money to the victims in relation to the instant guidance or under the pretext of compensation for damage after the fact.

or the victim renounced the right to deposit money.

Even if the amount of fraud shall be considered to be the full amount of the deposit, and the amount paid to the victims shall be.

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 1. 25. 선고 2006도7470 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.10 2015노2698

-청주지방법원 2014.02.06 2013노842

-의정부지방법원 2014.10.23 2014노1628

-수원지방법원 2020.02.07 2019노5579

-서울동부지방법원 2021.03.26 2020노1760