logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.07.19 2019노803
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In determining the facts, the Defendant believed the horses of E and borrowed money to the victim, and did not make any false statement.

On the other hand, the defendant paid 4.5 million won to the victim before the prosecution of this case was instituted. It cannot be said that the victim had no intention or ability to repay 6 million won at the time of borrowing from the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (three million won by fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that the defendant deceivings the victim with the intention of defraudation, even though the defendant did not have the intent of repayment or ability, and received 6 million won.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

1) At the time of the police investigation, the Defendant stated that “E borrowed 6 million won as a fund for the operation of new housing construction business from the victim, thereby hearing its horses and making it possible to do so to D.” However, the Defendant stated that “E borrowed 6 million won as a fund for the operation of new housing construction business, but most of them used for private purposes, such as its own cost of living.”

(3) On March 31, 2017, the Defendant shall pay KRW 6 million to the victim at the time of borrowing KRW 6 million from the victim until June 30, 2017.

“Preparation of a loan certificate to the effect (Evidence No. 23). On June 30, 2017, the victim paid KRW 1 million to the victim as interest, but did not fully repay the principal until the repayment date.

On the other hand, at the time of borrowing the above 6 million won, the defendant was not in a sufficient condition.

(See Article 47 of the Evidence Records). 4 The Defendant around December 29, 2017.

arrow