logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.11.13 2015노1094
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the complainant only speaks for the sale of officetels on the premise of the success of the implementation project. In light of all the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant was well aware of the fact that the defendant's business failure is not the sale of officetels in the event of the failure of the defendant's business, the court below found the complainant guilty of the charges of this case on a different premise, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant was not guilty, even though it was not a misunderstanding of the fact that the defendant's deception with the criminal intent of deception and by deceiving the victim is not sufficient to repay the borrowed money sufficiently in the future.

2. Determination

A. The intent of fraud, which is a subjective constituent element of fraud, is to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing the transaction before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession, and the crime of fraud is also established by dolus negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8781, Jan. 18, 2008). In addition, in the case of fraud involving the taking-off of property, if there is a delivery of property due to deception, it constitutes fraud by itself, thereby infringing on the victim’s property, and thus, it

shall not cause any damage to the entire property of the victim.

The establishment of fraud does not affect the establishment of fraud.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Do1899 Decided July 7, 2000). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant loaned the victim with the money that requires the cost of design for the construction of officetels at the time of the instant loan.

By May 30, 2012.

arrow