(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.04.27 2016고단1819

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) 광주지방법원 2017.04.27 2016고단1819

사기

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On June 15, 2014, the Defendant of the facts charged of the instant case: (a) at the distribution office operated by the victim D in Gui-si, Sin-si on the part of the Defendant, the Defendant would repay the Defendant without any molding from lending money to the Defendant for taking over the fish farm in Vietnam.

“A false statement” was made.

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the injured party, it was thought that it would be used as a personal debt and cost of living, and the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the money even if he borrowed money from the injured party because it did not have any other property.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above, and thereby his deceivings the victim, the amount of KRW 5 million on the 25th of the same month from the victim, and the same year.

7.2.1 million won, and the same month;

4.10 million won, 17.20 million won in the same month, 17.2 million won in the name of the defendant Eul, and 31.4.5 million won in each type of F, the same year;

8. 8.2 million won was deposited in E’s account and acquired by deceptiveation of 51.5 million won in total.

2. Although the defendant's assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel received money from the injured party as stated in the facts charged, it does not borrow money, but also means to operate a fishing place business in Vietnam and receive it as investment money, and the defendant did not have any intent to commit the crime of deception.

3. Determination

A. The nature of the victim’s money paid 1) Evidence that corresponds to the fact that the victim was the borrowed money that the victim promised to return the money paid to the defendant among the facts charged in the instant case is a statement made by the victim at an investigative agency (the entry in the D’s statement, the statement in the police’s statement in D’s statement, and the statement in D’s statement in the second police interrogation protocol against the defendant), and the remaining evidence is meaningful to the extent that the support is supported.

However, the victim sent money to this Court after hearing an explanation of the initial relationship in the context of “a loan or investment loan” in this Court.

corresponding thereto.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.04.14 2016고단7245

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.07.21 2017고단1707

-인천지방법원 2017.07.06 2016고단926

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2017.09.14 2017고정41

-서울서부지방법원 2017.10.31 2016고단2965