(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.10.30 2014노4056 | 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 2014.10.30 2014노4056

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below which recognized that the defendant, although he had the intent and ability to repay the money from the victim C at the time of borrowing the money, obtained the money by borrowing the money without such intent and ability (the misunderstanding of facts), and that the punishment of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

(F) Determination; 2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant has taken money by deceiving the victim.

① On October 1, 2010, at the time of borrowing KRW 100 million from the victim, the Defendant agreed to provide the victim with the lease deposit of KRW 100 million in the IS station located in Pyeongtaek-si, which was operated by the Defendant, as security. However, the Defendant did not take procedures for the actual provision of security. At the time, the above lease deposit was actually provided as security for the obligation of KRW 70 million to J, and the obligation of KRW 30 million to K. The Defendant suspended the above gas station business, and the Defendant received the lease deposit and paid it to J and K.

② On February 24, 2011, the Defendant embezzled the funds of KRW 250 million of the gas station on behalf of the Defendant before borrowing KRW 100 million from the victim, and it was difficult for the Defendant to operate the gas station on behalf of the Defendant.

The Defendant promised to provide the victim with the above real estate as security, and the above real estate was owned by the Defendant’s husband, and the Defendant’s question at the police, “I am to the complainant the necessary documents for the provision of security”, “I am to the Appellant.”

In order to find out the registration right, the parent could not be able to find out the system because the parent was hidden.

It is suitable for the father to provide housing owned by his father as a security.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.07.14 2016고단1419

-수원지방법원 2018.02.07 2017노7391

-수원지방법원 2019.06.13 2018고단7526

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2013.02.20 2012고단1701

-수원지방법원 2013.01.10 2012노4551