(영문) 광주지방법원 2021.02.16 2020노3094 | 리걸엔진

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 2021.02.16 2020노3094

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant has no intention to commit the crime of defraudation.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The following circumstances can be acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts.

(1) On August 5, 2016, from around March 29, 2018 to around March 2018, the Defendant supplied a uniform equivalent to KRW 353,230,000 in total from the injured party, but did not pay the amount to the injured party, and only a part of the amount was paid in the manner of granting a uniform equivalent to KRW 67,890,000 in total.

Shell, the Defendant, while closing the trokes kept in the tank around July 2016 to August 8, 2016, suffered damages equivalent to KRW 300 million, and even though it was no longer supplied to Chinese exporters around August 2016, the Defendant continued to receive the trokes from the injured party without notifying the victim of such circumstances, and did not pay the sales proceeds of the trokes to the other fishermen or used the trokes in repayment of their obligations.

The Defendant was liable for a financial institution’s loan of 600 million won or more on August 2016, and the Defendant was also unable to repay the total amount of 180 million won through the transaction with F.

Applicant on April 18, 2018, the Defendant issued a promissory note with the face value of KRW 240,000,000 to the victim. On the same day, the Promissory Notes were prepared.

(v) the Defendant was aware of the intention of repayment in light of the fact that the obligation incurred in the transaction from January 2012 to July 2016 was fully repaid, and that the obligation was transferred in lieu of the payment of the amount of the pre-sale deposit. The Defendant was operated by the Defendant.

D argues that the ability to repay is sufficient in light of the transaction details of the fishery partnership corporation.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant on August 2016.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 해남지원 2018.10.04 2017고단449

-광주지방법원 해남지원 2017.02.16 2016고단431

-대구지방법원 2013.09.05 2013노298

-광주지방법원순천지원 2020.11.11 2020고단20

-광주지방법원 2016.10.13 2015노2769