(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.01 2018노1778

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 2018.11.01 2018노1778

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) It is true that the Defendant received KRW 13 million from the landowner B at the cost necessary to obtain a loan while developing the land of Ansan-si.

2) However, since the Defendant used all necessary pre-loan operations, such as appraisal, etc., in fact, he did not deceiving B.

3) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and erroneous in understanding the legal principles on fraud.

B. Even if the sentencing is found to be guilty against the criminal defendant, the sentence of the lower court (two years of the suspended sentence of six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on fraud.

1) While the Defendant received KRW 13 million for the purpose of obtaining a loan while developing the land owned by the victim, the Defendant used the said money in repayment of personal debt amounting to KRW 10 million on the day immediately following the receipt of the remittance.

2) Money used by the Defendant for the development of the above land among KRW 13 million is limited to KRW 500,000,000 and KRW 2,000,000,000, paid to real estate brokers who entered the site to borrow bonds. It is also difficult to view that the pre-contract for the development of the marina Civil Works is a cost for loans.

The Defendant made a statement at an investigative agency that “In the end, the Defendant used the instant land as a cost for the development of the instant land comprehensively” while repeating false statements several times with regard to the place of use of KRW 13 million.

3) At the time of the trial, the Defendant himself recognized as the representative director, and L Co., Ltd., which had decided to take charge of the development of the instant land, several years.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.10 2016고단7900

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.01.12 2015가단87403

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.18 2018노1920

-부산지방법원 2019.07.04 2019고단1406

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.09.23 2015가단93194