logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.07.04 2019노85
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant had sufficient means and assets to repay the borrowed money at the time of borrowing money from the victim B, and used the borrowed money as business funds for the purpose of talking with the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of fraud was erroneous because the Defendant did not commit deception on the intent or ability to repay and did not have the intention to obtain fraud.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal on this part, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges by taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

B. The existence of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the crime of fraud, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, contents of the crime, the process of transaction, and the relationship with the victim, unless the Defendant makes a confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do3034, Mar. 26, 1996). In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the court below and the trial court, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law of mistake of facts as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion of mistake is without merit.

① The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, only set the right to collateral security, RB Co., Ltd. and the maximum debt amount of KRW 396 million. According to the S market price data at the time, the transaction price of the instant apartment was KRW 6.5 million, and the actual loan was not more than KRW 300 million. As such, the Defendant asserted that there was net assets equivalent to KRW 300 million, which is the minimum difference at the time of the instant case, and held other valuable real estate.

arrow