(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.07.21 2017노164

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) 서울남부지방법원 2017.07.21 2017노164

사기

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) Fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and ① Defendant did not have conspired to acquire B and the sales price by fraud.

② If I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”) completed the instant officetel completion work (hereinafter “the instant construction”), it would have acquired the instant officetel 17 units as substitute repayment, and the victim E and F would have acquired the ownership of the instant officetel 610 and 510. Since the instant officetel completion agreement was nonexistent at the I’s unfair demand, there was no intention to commit fraud.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B1’s misunderstanding of facts: (a) the Defendant believed the horses of this case 610 and 510 to sell the instant officetels 610 and 510; and (b) offered construction costs by selling them to the victim E and F; (c) there was no criminal intent of deception; (d) the Defendant received down payment from the victim E-ro to the victim E with the down payment of KRW 60 million, and the down payment of KRW 90 million from the victim F with the victim’s intermediate payment of KRW 90 million, and did not receive money for other reasons of intermediate payment.

② The part of fraud against the victim K: the Defendant provided the victim K with the instant officetel 910 and 1107 as security, and borrowed the instant officetel 910 and 80 million won, and subsequently, he/she would exchange the instant officetel with the number of houses repaid later.

It is not true that the victim K received a total of KRW 120 million with the loan deposit of KRW 40 million under the name of the lease deposit of KRW 40,000 and KRW 80,000,000 from the instant officetel, and it does not receive any money under any other pretext.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts are acknowledged.

(1) A stock company.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.06.14 2017노751

-의정부지방법원 2017.06.22 2017노257

-대구고등법원 2016.01.21 2015노575

-서울고등법원 2018.10.17 2018노1504

-인천지방법원 2016.01.22 2015노3762