logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.04.20 2016노1701
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant was merely unable to pay interest on the money borrowed from the injured party, but did not acquire money from the injured party under the pretext of the money borrowed.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a constituent element of fraud determination as to the assertion of facts, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial power, environment, details of the crime, process of transaction, etc., insofar as the Defendant does not confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do424, Apr. 25, 1995; 2003Do5382, Sept. 15, 2005). According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant paid the amount of money received from the victim from Oct. 10 to Nov. 201, 2014, the amount equivalent to three copies per month exceeding the interest rate prescribed by the Interest Restriction Act is deemed to have been paid monthly to the victim as interest, while the Defendant was already liable for a large amount of debt to banks, credit card companies, and credit card companies at the time of receiving money from the victim, and the Defendant was not repaid with the Defendant’s income.

It is recognized that the defendant received money from the injured party, and in full view of the above facts, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the money to the injured party at the time of the above loan, and therefore the criminal intent of the defendant can be recognized.

The judgment of the court below is just and the defendant's allegation of the above facts is without merit.

B. Determination of the illegality of sentencing is relatively low in the amount of damage caused by the instant crime, and the amount exceeding the limited interest rate prescribed in the Interest Limitation Act out of the amount paid by the Defendant to the victim as interest.

arrow