logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.05.02 2014노83
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Notwithstanding the recognition of the Defendant’s deception and fraud as stated in the instant facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. On January 17, 201, the Defendant informed the Seoul Northern District Court located in Dobong-dong 626, Dobong-gu, Dobong-gu, Seoul to the effect that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim C to pay for the auction goods under the name of the Defendant, and that even if the Defendant participated in the auction goods bidding under the name of the Defendant, the Defendant notified the Defendant’s account to the effect that “If the Defendant borrowed money from the Defendant to receive the bid bond to obtain the bid bond from the 10th, the 11th, the 11th, and the 11st (hereinafter “the instant so-called “the so-called”) of the victim’s agent who received the victim’s instructions and confirmed whether to accept the actual bid, etc., the Defendant would receive the bid bond at 2 p.m. if the bid is not awarded, the Defendant would receive the loan at 2 p.m. and would promptly receive the bid bond if the bid is not awarded.”

The Defendant, by deceiving D as such, received KRW 69 million from the victim via the Agricultural Cooperative Account (Account Number:F) in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

B. On January 17, 201, the lower court found that D remitted KRW 69 million to the Agricultural Cooperative account under the name of the Defendant as the agent of C on the same day, while recognizing the fact that the Defendant used the said money as a bid bond in the auction procedure on the private loan of this case on the same day, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that H entirely lent money to C and D, and that H made any communication with the Defendant during that process, and that the Defendant lent KRW 60 million to H at the time, and thus, the Defendant was acquitted on the ground that there was no possibility that the recognition that the said money was borrowed.

(c).

arrow