(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.08.17 2017고단2312

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) 인천지방법원 2017.08.17 2017고단2312

사기

Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who registered as a business operator under the name of F and registered with the Do and retail chain (E) from May 26, 2009 to July 31, 2016, Seo-gu, Incheon, DA 707 of Dong-gu, Incheon, and Do and retail chain (E).

On August 20, 2013, the Defendant loaned KRW 100 million to the victim's ‘I' factory operated by the victim H in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and the victim' factory operation funds are urgently needed, and the principal shall be paid on the 25th of each month, and the principal shall be repaid until January 25, 2014.

The phrase " was made to the effect that it was".

However, the facts are as follows: (a) at the time when the Defendant was the Defendant’s name; (b) KRW 350 million; (c) KRW 130 million; (d) KRW 480,000,000,000 under the name of J; and (e) KRW 150,000; (c) KRW 150,000; and (d) KRW 150,000; and (e) KRW 150,000; (c) there was no particular property; (d) the obligation against the purchaser; (e) the obligation against the counterparty was merely a bad credit term claim that is difficult to be repaid; and (e) the obligation was insufficient to repay the existing obligation with the profits of E; and (e) there was no need for the Defendant to operate E while continuing to operate E; and (e) there was no intention or ability to change the obligation even if having borrowed money from the damaged party.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 100 million, including KRW 30 million around August 20, 2013, and KRW 70 million around August 23, 2013, from the victim to the corporate bank account in the name of F, under the pretext of borrowing money.

2. Determination:

A. Determination of the establishment of a crime of fraud by defraudation of the borrowed money should be made at the time of borrowing. Therefore, if the defendant had the intent and ability to repay at the time of borrowing, he did not pay the borrowed money thereafter.

Even if this is not just a simple non-performance of civil liability, it is criminal.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.01.10 2017노3118

-인천지방법원 2014.10.02 2014고단1741

-인천지방법원 2017.11.02 2016고단3403

-인천지방법원 2017.12.13 2017고단5550

-인천지방법원 2016.04.28 2015고단6958