(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.09.13 2017노4347 | 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) 수원지방법원 2017.09.13 2017노4347

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant conspired to commit the instant fraud since the Defendant, as the misunderstanding of the fact, did not directly apply for the loan to the victim, and the B and the guarantor applied for the loan to the victim directly.

Although it cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts that found the Defendant guilty.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s loan of this case can be easily offered to B with a joint and several guarantor if he/she is the joint and several guarantor.

The Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was unable to grant a loan from the injured party under the credit standing of B (Evidence No. 1 and No. 59 of the evidence record), the Defendant was recommended as a surety by the president of the company “H” (Evidence No. 60 of the evidence record No. 1 and No. 60 of the evidence record No. 3).

However, in light of the fact that the personal information of the person who recommended C is not entirely specified (Evidence Nos. 61, 94, 95 of the evidence record), ④ the Defendant and B, upon applying for the instant loan, sent the phrase “A,” regardless of whether B and C were not related to each other (Evidence No. 63 of the evidence record), and ⑤ C had already died before the instant loan was granted, and the Defendant was unaware of C and did not have any satisf (Evidence No. 61 of the evidence record No. 61 of the evidence record), the lower court’s judgment is justifiable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the wrongful argument of sentencing is against the Defendant’s depth of the instant crime, and the instant crime is against the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc. as indicated in the judgment below, which became final and conclusive, and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act’s concurrent crimes, and is simultaneously subject to Article 39

참조조문

-사행행위 등 규제 및 처벌 특례법

-형법 제37조

-형법 제39조 제1항

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.01.18 2016노4031

-대구지방법원 2017.12.22 2017노4119

-대구지방법원 2018.01.19 2017노4782

-창원지방법원 2017.01.19 2015노2562

-대구지방법원 2017.01.13 2016노2097