(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.01.26 2017노1854 | 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) 대구지방법원 2018.01.26 2017노1854

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not constitute a crime of fraud because the Defendant did not deceiving the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, and had the intent and ability to repay the money from the victim at the time of borrowing the money

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that on February 28, 2008, the Defendant laid the ground along with the birth of the Defendant, at the victim D’s house located in the Gecheon-gun Kim Jong-gun, Kimcheon-gun.

Since there is no money to pay part payments, it is possible to use only one month to lend 5 million won, and pay interest.

“The phrase “ was false.”

However, the defendant did not have any intent and ability to repay money even if he borrowed money from the injured party in excess of his obligation at the time.

Nevertheless, the Defendant filed an application for amendment to a bill of amendment with the content that the Defendant changed the “five million won” of the last two of the facts charged in the instant case to “4.75 million won” from the injured party, and the lower court permitted amendment to a bill of amendment.

this shall be transferred and shall be acquired by fraud.

B. The following circumstances revealed by the judgment records, i.e., ① the victim, at the time of borrowing money from the investigative agency, set the land along with the birth of the subway in Kimcheon.

Although the court of the court below stated that "at the time of borrowing money, the defendant had already borrowed money at another place to borrow money for the purpose of the fraud" that there is no consistency in the victim's statement that "the defendant had to repay the money to the other place, at the time of borrowing money." Thus, the victim's statement alone was deceiving the victim about the purpose of borrowing money as stated in the judgment of the court below at the time when the defendant borrowed money from the damaged person, as stated in the judgment of the court below.

It is difficult to conclude. (2) The victim is a total of the defendant from January 20, 2006 to July 25, 2008.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 의성지원 2017.04.20 2016고정74

-대구지방법원 2017.06.30 2016노3797

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2013.06.27 2012고단1308

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.03.28 2016고단1022

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2017.11.15 2017고단530