logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.10.29 2015노34
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant (1) was urged by the victim to pay money after borrowing money from the victim, and the victim did not talk about the victim at the time of borrowing money from the victim, and the victim was already aware that it is difficult for the victim to pay money, so there was no perception that the Defendant deceivings the victim.

In addition, the failure of the defendant to repay the borrowed money is due to the failure to operate the newly established "K pharmacy" due to the changes in the surrounding circumstances, and the financial status has deteriorated. It is not that the defendant has acquired the money from the time of borrowing.

Nevertheless, since the court below found all of the facts charged in this case guilty, it erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The decision of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable in 10 months of imprisonment imposed on the defendant.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant stated that “The amount that the Defendant would receive from the South Korean residents working in the U.S. prior to borrowing money from the victim is KRW 1 billion, and the business of South East Korean residents would be the date when the patent was set off in Korea, and the compensation would have come to a KRW 1 billion, when the business was found to be lost on the ground that it was lost on the side of the outer side,” and even if the Defendant did not make the above remarks, the Defendant would have the intent and ability to repay the money with the intent to commit the crime of deception.”

arrow