(영문) 춘천지방법원 2015.12.09 2015노466 | 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) 춘천지방법원 2015.12.09 2015노466

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is a fact that the defendant has made the defendant subrogated for the obligation of the defendant with the loan of the victim, there is no fact that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the judgment below.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The deception as a requirement for a judgment of fraud as to the assertion of mistake of facts refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to comply with each other in property transactional relations, and it does not necessarily require to be related to the important part of a juristic act, and it is sufficient to establish the basis for a judgment in order to allow an actor to conduct an act of disposal of property that he/she wishes by omitting the other party into mistake.

In addition, whether a certain act constitutes a deception that causes mistake of another person should be determined generally and objectively in consideration of the situation of the transaction, the other party's knowledge, experience, occupation, and other specific circumstances at the time of the act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do7459, Oct. 15, 2009). In full view of all the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below in light of the above legal principles, the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim, such as the facts charged, and acquired the pecuniary profit equivalent to KRW 175 million in total from the victim can be sufficiently recognized.

(A) According to the witness S’s testimony, it can be recognized that the repayment period of the instant loan is three years, but such circumstance does not interfere with recognizing the fact that the Defendant made a false statement that the Defendant would repay the loan to the victim within three months. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

B. The fact that the amount of damage caused by the instant crime was not significant, the damage was not recovered, and the Defendant’s other cases.

참조판례

-대법원 2009. 10. 15. 선고 2009도7459 판결

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2013.07.24 2013노300

-춘천지방법원 2015.11.18 2015노211

-춘천지방법원 2014.04.09 2013노635

-춘천지방법원 2015.07.22 2015노248

-춘천지방법원 2015.12.02 2014노843