(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.22 2016노2378

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 2016.12.22 2016노2378

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In determining the facts, the Defendant operated a golf appliance store from around 2004 to 2008, supplied the victim with golf appliance products, and at each time of the crime as indicated in the judgment below, claims such as the price for goods to be received from the victim were more than the amount of damage as indicated in the judgment below.

As to Paragraph (1) of the facts charged of this case (the fraud of loans more than 17 times from January 19, 2009 to November 3, 2009), the Defendant stated at the time of borrowing this part that the Defendant had a friendly relationship with the victim as to the relationship with the victim and received the payment from the victim by dividing the above claim against the victim whenever necessary by the Defendant. As the Defendant delivered money with an implied agreement between the parties to the post settlement, there was no criminal intent to obtain fraud.

Meanwhile, the money mentioned in Nos. 1, 16, and 17 of the crime sight table as indicated in the holding of the court below is borrowed from the victim, and the defendant does not borrow Q in the name of Q.

With respect to Paragraph 2 of the facts charged of this case (the fraud by using a credit card), the victim reported that the defendant was in an economically difficult situation, and that the defendant paid a credit card to the defendant in full by dividing the above debt against the defendant. Therefore, there was no intention to commit the crime of defraudation at the time of using the above credit card.

With respect to Paragraph (3) of the facts charged in the instant case (the fraud of the borrowed money for visiting China), the Defendant borrowed KRW 5.5 million from the victim on April 16, 2013 as operating funds, and did not borrow the said money on the sole ground that the Defendant exported waste cables to China.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Paragraph 1 and 1 of the facts charged regarding the assertion of mistake of facts

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.21 2016노2264

-광주지방법원 2014.05.01 2013노2157

-서울고등법원 2017.04.13 2017노563

-서울고등법원 2019.12.05 2019노1170

-전주지방법원 2020.11.18 2020노1243