(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.02.10 2016노8567 | 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 2017.02.10 2016노8567

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles did not make a false statement to the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below, and as long as the victim was well aware of the economic situation of the defendant, etc. as he had been living together with the victim at the time of the instant case, the defendant deceivings the victim.

Although it cannot be seen otherwise, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, found that the Defendant and the victim came to school system from around March 2014, as follows: (i) the Defendant and the victim came to know while working at the Defendant’s home; and (ii) the Defendant had already been in a bad credit state, such as bearing the loan of KRW 5,000 to the lending enterprise; and (iii) the victim requested the Defendant to obtain the loan to raise the amount of KRW 18,00,000,000 for the agreement on the punishment of the death village around April 9, 2014.

The defendant was not aware that he/she was jointly and severally liable for a large amount of liability to the lending company at the time, and the defendant would receive installment savings with the maturity of nine million won if he/she was lent to the lending company, and he/she would pay the installment savings by the end of December 2014.

Meanwhile, around August 29, 2014, the Defendant lent KRW 8 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant lent money from the investigation agency to the lower court’s court, consistently made a statement from the investigation agency to the lower court, as a whole, to the effect that “The Defendant was living together with the victim and used it as living expenses, etc.” (iii) however, the Defendant and the injured party asserted that they were living together with the victim and used it as a whole. However, as otherwise alleged, the period of the teaching.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.11.03 2017노6306

-부산지방법원 2018.05.24 2018노864

-수원지방법원 2016.05.04 2015노7427

-수원지방법원 2018.09.21 2018노4373

-서울서부지방법원 2021.01.14 2020노932