(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.09.14 2017노773

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) 서울서부지방법원 2017.09.14 2017노773

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (2016 High Order 1829) The Defendant had the intent or ability to pay the money to the victim by operating the lending of money from the victim C. However, the Defendant did not abide by the promise and did not pay the money to the death of the other party. In particular, the Defendant first received KRW 25 million, inasmuch as he did not lend the money to the Defendant without any condition, he did not have any criminal intent to commit deception and fraud.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant made the same assertion in the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the allegation by stating the above assertion and judgment in detail, under the title “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment.

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant did not enter into a contract for a building to serve a restaurant; even if the defendant borrowed money from the victim C, even if he did not have the intent or ability to change the date of the operation or promise of a restaurant, it can be recognized that he/she received a total of KRW 40 million by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below, and that he/she received a remittance of KRW 40 million, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant had the criminal intent to obtain fraud.

(1) At the time of the Defendant’s lending of money from the injured party to the prosecution, the Defendant had a debt of KRW 20 million, and the victim’s report of marriage with the injured party also attempted to go back due to a debt issue. In case of remittance to the account under one’s name, seizure, etc., the Defendant had the injured party wired money to the account under one’s name.

The victim made a statement.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.08.31 2017노729

-서울북부지방법원 2019.11.21 2019노1131

-의정부지방법원 2015.03.31 2014노2039

-서울서부지방법원 2017.05.31 2016고단1829

-인천지방법원 2019.11.21 2019노1684