(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.11 2016노2903

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.11 2016노2903

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. The contract for the removal of this case in mistake of facts is a conclusion between the victim and T, and the defendant did not have concluded the above contract with the victim.

In addition, the defendant had no intention and ability to repay the money borrowed from the victim by deceiving the victim as shown in the facts charged of this case, and there was no intention and ability to repay the money.

B. The sentence of the first instance court on the unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the first instance trial as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant could not have contracted the victim at the time to remove the H (hereinafter “instant removal”) in Ansan-si implemented by LH (Korea Land and Housing Corporation), and even if the victim did not have any intent or ability to repay the money borrowed from the victim, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, as stated in the first instance court’s decision, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 29,130,000 from the victim, and that the Defendant had a criminal intent to defraud the victim at the time.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake cannot be accepted.

① The victim made a consistent statement at an investigative agency to the effect that “the Defendant was given 50% of the removal works executed by LH with the name of G, and the remainder will be given 50% of the removal works to G in return for the name lending, and the Defendant would be given a contract for the part of the removal works that E will undertake. After which, the Defendant entered into a contract with LH at KRW 120,000,000 with LH, and even if the Defendant given a subcontract at KRW 90,000,000 to the victim, 30,000 won would be repaid with the Defendant’s share if the amount of the removal works would be repaid with the Defendant’s share at KRW 90,00,000,000 as requested by the Defendant.”

② On the other hand, this case.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2019.06.17 2017고단6125

-부산지방법원 2016.03.24 2015가단27688

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.20 2016고단2339

-부산지방법원 2020.05.14 2018나58332

-창원지방법원 2016.10.13 2016노1430