(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.06.21 2019노418 | 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 2019.06.21 2019노418

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles merely require the establishment of a right to collateral security to a criminal agreement with P, and did not promise P and the victim to be able to perform a right to collateral security work, but the victim was accused of the victim as stated in the facts charged. As such, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim in collusion with B, and there is no fact that the instant right to collateral security was lower-ranking collateral that has no property value, and there is no fact that the Defendant acquired property benefits.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant conspireds with B in sequence, thereby deceiving the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

1) The Defendant forged and uses a letter of commitment to payment in the name of R, and the Defendant is a credit business company C (hereinafter “C”).

(2) The Defendant voluntarily stated that, under the circumstances where the appellate trial (Seoul High Court 2015No2425) was pending in the appellate trial (Seoul High Court 2015No2425) by having S borrow a loan equivalent to KRW 3 billion, and acquired pecuniary profits, the Defendant consulted with S as a security of real estate of KRW 100 million by stating that the Defendant would be punished if C would pay KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000 won, and that there was a need for real estate security of KRW 100,000,000,000,000 won in order to reach an agreement with C (Seoul High Court 2015No2425). In light of the fact that C complies with the above consultation, even if the instant case, which was created by the victim, was a subordinate collateral security, it is deemed that there was a certain property value.

3 The J shall start from P.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2012.11.02 2012노1735

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.23 2015노992

-서울고등법원 2019.06.20 2019노829

-수원지방법원 2015.09.16 2015노1592

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.10 2018노1266