(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.01.23 2013노4109 | 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) 수원지방법원 2014.01.23 2013노4109

사기

Text

The judgment below

The part against Defendant A and the part against Defendant B, excluding the compensation order.

Reasons

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A: The sentencing of the lower court (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B: Error of mistake of facts and unfair sentencing 1) With respect to the fraud of the victim P, the Defendant did not borrow KRW 100 million from the victim P, and the victim P did not directly invest in the J, and the Defendant was also subject to fraud by investing KRW 50 million in the J, and did not intend to do so with the J (201st 336th 2). As to the fraud of the victim AH, the party borrowing the business fund is CR, which is the chairperson of AD, and the Defendant was a guarantee. However, this is merely because the Defendant was working as the vice-chairperson of AD, and the Defendant is not legally liable for the said money.

(3) Regarding the charge of forging and holding a loan certificate under the name of AM, the Defendant, the victim, was able to obtain permission from AM and requested the Defendant to prepare a receipt to prepare a loan certificate under the name of AM. As such, there was a delegation from AM with respect to the preparation of the document (2012 order 431. 4). As to the fraud of AW by the victim, the Defendant is a person who is obliged to receive KRW 80 million from BL, as a person who is obliged to receive KRW 80,00,00 from BL, as a person who is obligated to receive KRW 80,000,000,000 from BL, and did not have a criminal intent to obtain the above money.

(2012 Highest 739) The sentencing of the lower court (4 years of imprisonment and 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant D: BO was required to pay KRW 450 million to BO only until the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles became possible for BO to obtain a free loan, but it did not invest KRW 450 million since BO did not obtain a loan, so there was no intention to commit fraud.

2. Determination

A. The defendant's assertion against the defendant A was committed in the first instance, and the crime was divided and reflected, and 4 million won prior to the complaint of this case is victim V.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.11 2019노886

-서울서부지방법원 2013.12.24 2013노670

-서울고등법원 2016.11.29 2015노3420

-전주지방법원 2019.05.29 2019노124

-수원지방법원 2015.04.01 2015노90