(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.09.14 2018노991 | 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) 전주지방법원 2018.09.14 2018노991

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) In relation to the instant case as indicated in the lower judgment, the Defendant did not agree to obtain a loan of 1,388 square meters to the victim F as security, and the Defendant did not intend to pay the purchase price with a loan of 1,38 square meters to the victim F. The Defendant intended to obtain a loan from AJ as security and use the said land as security because the need for funds, such as the deposit money of AJ, etc., was the Defendant, and the Defendant attempted to repay the said land after temporarily making a loan as security, and the AJ did not intend to commit fraud.

(2) In relation to the 2017 Highest 396 case as stated in the lower judgment, the injured U only gave the Defendant an amount of KRW 20 million as office operating expenses, and the Defendant did not deception U when promising the Defendant to pay shares and dividends.

(3) In relation to the case of defraudation of the remaining money for lease on a deposit basis (2032, 2016 order 2032, 2017 order 1968, 2017 order 2553 order 2053) as stated in the judgment below, the Defendant was merely unable to return the money for lease on a deposit basis to the victims because it is difficult for the Defendant to do so due to the sudden change of the AJ,

B. The punishment of the lower court (the first crime as indicated in its holding: 10 months of imprisonment, 5 months of imprisonment, and 1 year and 4 months of imprisonment, and 1 year and 4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court rejected the allegation in detail in the column of “determination on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel” by asserting the same purport even in the lower court’s holding as to the assertion regarding the 2016 High Order 1399 and 2017 High Order 396. In light of the records, the lower court’s judgment is just and acceptable, and the lower court’s determination is erroneous and erroneous, contrary to the Defendant’s assertion.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that this part of facts is erroneous is without merit.

B. The evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion on the 2016 High Order 2032 case (L) of the lower judgment.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.02.07 2017노6502

-대전지방법원 2018.09.13 2018노1369

-수원지방법원 2018.01.24 2017노1801

-서울북부지방법원 2018.10.26 2018노1361

-제주지방법원 2016.06.16 2016노102