(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.09.06 2018노1922 | 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) 광주지방법원 2018.09.06 2018노1922

사기등

Text

The part concerning Defendant A among the parts except the compensation order issued by the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A. Imprisonment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the following facts: (a) Defendant A’s fraud of the borrowed money by Defendant A, who was acquitted by the lower court, was not guilty; (b) the content and degree of deception against the victim AC by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor; (c) the relationship between the Defendant and the victim; (d) the victim borrowed money from the Defendant with the borrowed money; (e) the borrowed money was large to KRW 255 million; and (e) the borrowed money was loaned to the Defendant for a period during which the borrowed money was not in a month; and (e) the Defendant actively demanded the preparation of the borrowed money immediately after the lending of money; and (e) the victim was aware of the Defendant’

Therefore, it can be fully recognized that the defendant obtained money of KRW 2550 million in the name of the borrowed money by deceiving the victim, and acquired it by fraud.

Even if there is no proof of a crime, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged for this reason, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for 3 years and 6 months, Defendant B: fine of 3,000,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. Defendant A’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) On November 13, 2017, the Defendant was found not guilty of the lower judgment on the part on the charge of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts, and around November 13, 2017, at the BE located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, the Defendant left the Victim AC with the mother of “50 million won or more to 70 million won,” and two apartments and officetelss are in the name of female students.

In addition, since it seems that sexual traffic business in the past is conducted, the police was investigated and the property was registered under the name of family.

In this regard, it is not clear to do so, and it shall be repaid immediately when it is resolved.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the defendant was dud.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2020.08.14 2019고단486

-대구지방법원 2017.04.20 2017고단969

-서울서부지방법원 2017.09.21 2017고합87

-광주지방법원 2018.04.25 2018노42

-부산지방법원 2017.07.14 2016노4195