(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.01.26 2016노802 | 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) 창원지방법원 2017.01.26 2016노802

사기

Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not borrow money from the victim of the fact, did not deceiving the victim about his intention or ability to change, and did not recognize the intention of defraudation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The punishment of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts was examined. The defendant's assertion in this part is without merit, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

① The Defendant asserts that, rather than borrowing KRW 200 million from the injured party, the Defendant did not pay KRW 200 million out of the real estate purchase price to F Co., Ltd. in the management of the victim.

However, on May 3, 2013, when the defendant borrowed KRW 234,40,000 from the injured party, the certificate of the self-consumption loan contract was prepared, and the victim issued and delivered it to the defendant on April 16, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the defendant transferred KRW 100 million from his own account to the defendant's account on May 3, 2013. The defendant and the co-defendant B of the court below borrowed KRW 200 million from the injured party on May 3, 2013 in the investigation process.

In addition, the J, who worked as a management director at E Co., Ltd., also paid the down payment in advance at the court below’s “In order to obtain the remainder loan from the bank, the payment should be made first, and the down payment was made by lending KRW 100 million from the injured party on April 16, 2013 due to the shortage of money.

Considering the fact that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 200 million from the injured party”, it is recognized that the Defendant borrowed KRW 200 million from the injured party.

(2) The defendant borrows money from the injured party.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.06 2018고단4103

-대구지방법원 2016.01.07 2015고단3357

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2016.07.05 2016고단26

-대구지방법원 2017.07.07 2017노1639

-부산지방법원 2016.02.15 2014고단3995