logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2021.02.17 2020노1155
사기
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant’s misunderstanding of the fact that he borrowed money from the victim B or most of the remaining money is KRW 5 million, and the amount borrowed from the victim E is KRW 18.5 million, and the amount borrowed from the victim G is KRW 20 million.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. According to the following circumstances that can be recognized by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant acquired the total of KRW 82,30,000 from the victim Eul over 18 times, total of KRW 270,000,000 from the victim E over 56 times, total of KRW 10,000 from the victim Eul over 10 times, and KRW 22,00,000 from the victim G as a loan, and therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

The Defendant was liable for a considerable amount of corporate bonds without any special property, and around 2009, the Defendant borrowed money from the victim B, and the Defendant’s India Investigation Agency was aware of the fact that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim B around 2009 (No. 2 of the Investigation Records No. 131 of the Investigation Record): Provided, That the Defendant paid all of the borrowed money from the victim B in 2009, but the Defendant did not submit any material.

Around 2017, monthly income from the operation of a restaurant is merely KRW 4 million or KRW 6 million, while bonds interest, etc. should be paid in an amount equivalent to KRW 5 million through KRW 6 million per month (Investigation Records No. 1, 306, 320 of the Act). The victims have consistently stated from the investigative agency to the lower court on the Defendant’s deception, the amount of borrowed money and the timing of payment from the victim B.

arrow