logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.04.14 2016노1681
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant is merely refusing to register the transfer of ownership of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G 103 Dong 101, because he/she did not agree on the amount of construction cost and defects in construction works between the victim E and the victim E. As such, the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay the obligation to the Defendant.

Therefore, there was a criminal intent to obtain fraud from the defendant.

Despite the fact that the court below was guilty, it was unlawful to determine the facts.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The Defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the cost of construction to the victim N or to pay the equivalent amount of real estate to the victim N.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize the defendant as having no intention or ability to pay the construction cost, and the court below erred by mistake of fact that affected the conclusion of the judgment

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the judgment in detail.

In light of the following circumstances which are recognized by comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant by deceiving the victim E to acquire the construction cost.

The judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is without merit.

1) On July 9, 2015, the Defendant completed the construction work before entering into a reimbursement agreement between E and E.

arrow