(영문) 대전지방법원 2021.02.16 2020노2544 | 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) 대전지방법원 2021.02.16 2020노2544

사기등

Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part of the case No. 913 of the 2019 shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The judgment below

(2).

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts as to each of the frauds on the following grounds.

(1) The Defendant, at 2019 High Order 913, was a number of monetary transactions other than the instant interior works with the victim D, and the dispute over the completion of the implementation of the instant interior works and the repair of defects was continued. In that process, the contact with the victim was interrupted, thereby preventing the payment of the price to the victim. Thus, the Defendant did not have intention to commit fraud.

(2) Of the 2019 High 2019 High 1310, the victim F was well aware that he had experience in implementation and was unable to smoothly proceed with the G market redevelopment project (hereinafter “the instant project”), and the Defendant had the intent and ability to promote the instant project. Rather, the instant project was not promoted due to the victim’s breach of contract, and thus, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, and the Defendant did not have any intent to commit fraud.

(3) The Defendant, 2020, 2020, 2020, 943, lent money from the Victim K to use it for the purpose of promoting the instant business, and transferred the instant business rights to the victim. Since he/she had the intent and ability to promote the instant business, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, and the Defendant did not have any intention to commit fraud.

B. The instant interior contract was concluded on October 20, 2008 between the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to Nos. 2019 high group 913 and the Defendant and the victim. While the said interior contract was concluded on October 20, 2008, the point at which the interior works were terminated is not clear, this part of the prosecution was instituted on January 29, 2019.

Although the court below should decide whether the indictment has been instituted within the period of prescription, the court below found the defendant guilty without examining the indictment.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.04.25 2013노3807

-인천지방법원 2015.10.08 2015노837

-서울고등법원 2019.05.02 2018노3162

-서울고등법원 2013.10.31 2013노1531

-서울남부지방법원 2021.01.26 2020노648