(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.06 2017노9322 | 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 2018.04.06 2017노9322

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

Reasons

1. Summary of the Reasons for Appeal 1) Fact-finding ① The defendant did not have any intention to deception in the following respect.

At the time of entering into a lease contract with the victims, the Defendant was aware of the process of entering into the contract and agreed in advance pursuant to Article 2 of the Special Agreement.

Even if it is not so, the Defendant was granted in advance the comprehensive authority to enter into a lease agreement as a truster pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Special Agreement on Trust.

In light of the appraisal price of the building, the defendant had the intent and ability to return the lease deposit to the victims after the termination of the lease.

(2) The defendant shall not have obtained any financial benefits, the period of repayment of which has been postponed, for the obligation to return the lease deposit of victim F.

On February 28, 2018, with the permission of this court on February 28, 2018, the prosecutor changed the facts charged against the victim F to the effect that the repayment period of KRW 30 million was postponed, and thereafter, the defendant asserted the changed facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained, since the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment in exchange for the facts charged and this court permitted changes in the case.

However, although there are reasons for reversal of authority above, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances are revealed.

(1) Loans from flooding mutual savings banks.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.11.29 2017고단1237

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.15 2020가단5056229

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.11.15 2017고합117

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.06.08 2017고단3262

-수원지방법원 2017.11.17 2017노625