(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.01 2017노1281

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 2017.09.01 2017노1281

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. (i) Crime of the first instance judgment

1. A. (1) and (2) there is no fact that the Defendant, while borrowing money from the victim D, had deceiving him/her into the place of use, his/her ability to change, or his/her intention to change.

In other words, the victim D was in a de facto marital relationship with the defendant, but the defendant knew that the funds for the operation of gambling are necessary, making a loan to the defendant.

B. In addition, the defendant had a considerable active asset at the time, so there was intention to repay or ability to repay.

Doz. The first instance crime

1. A. (3) With respect to the victim D, even though the defendant was aware that he did not have sufficient means to repay, the victim D provided a loan as a security to the high-priced visibility (the claim I. 2). In the case of the damaged roex visuals, the victim D merely borrowed and borrowed money as a security at the victim D’s request and merely used the money borrowed as a security. In addition, even if the defendant can be deemed to borrow aroex visuals, the defendant acquired the money by fraud since he returned it to the victim D on March 6, 2014.

(Ⅱ) In the case of prokn of damaged booms, the money borrowed as security will be used to pay the Defendant’s personal debt.

It refers to the use of this and the deception.

The first instance court of first instance (IV. 5) judged the amount of damage at the market price of the visibility as the market price of the above visibility and calculated the amount of damage at KRW 84 million, and the Defendant borrowed money as the security for visibility, and thus, the amount of damage should be the security value not equivalent to the exchange value (negative). The Defendant did not promise the victim T to pay for the crime No. 2 of the first instance trial, and the Defendant would sell it. The Defendant would not have promised the victim T to pay for the payment, and he would have paid for it.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2016.08.18 2016고단1179

-서울동부지방법원 2018.02.02 2017고정1718

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.07 2016고단1382

-대구지방법원 2016.04.22 2015고단4328

-부산지방법원 2017.05.17 2017고단677