(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.06.18 2014노5675 | 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 2015.06.18 2014노5675

사기미수

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the above judgment is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the victim D promised to pay KRW 100 million to E in the course of the Defendant’s mother, E and the Defendant’s mother, and considering all circumstances such as the process of purchase of the instant apartment, the relationship between the victim and E with the victim, and the process of the preparation of the instant lease contract, the instant lease contract is prepared in the name of the Defendant in lieu of the agreed amount of KRW 100 million that the victim would pay to E., and even if the victim was prepared in preparation for the occurrence of economic problems such as business failure, it constitutes a valid lease contract that is made for E, etc.

Since the de facto marital relationship between the victim and E has broken down, the defendant is merely the submission of the instant lease contract to the court to receive the above contract amount from the victim, not the court by deceiving the court to take the money for lease on a deposit basis of this case.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the E’s child living together with the victim D.

In fact, even though the victim was living together with the defendant's mother and was wrong, he prepared a lease contract with the lessor and the lessee's deposit amount of KRW 80 million as of January 28, 2012 as if the victim did not actually receive money from the victim's real estate.

After that, the liquidation of E and his living together with the end of August, 2012, which became final and conclusive due to the settlement decision by filing a lawsuit for the return of loans in 2012da9699.

As above, around November 7, 2013, the Suwon District Court 2013Da6356 (Return of security deposit) applied for an order to pay false contents with the intent to acquire the security deposit, such as the fact that the victim and the defendant did not have received the security deposit, but the victim attempted to raise an objection on or around the 29th day of the same month.

3. Determination

(a) related;

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2014.09.18 2014고정842

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.15 2019가단5121936

-서울남부지방법원 2019.10.11 2019고단3894

-수원지방법원 2015.10.07 2014가단505976

-부산지방법원 2016.10.21 2016노2993