(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.15 2014노4366

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 2015.10.15 2014노4366

사기

Text

The judgment below

Part of the compensation order, except the compensation order, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this shall not apply.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On December 4, 2008, the Defendant did not make a statement to the effect that “The Defendant made a request for advance payment after reducing the removal construction work as an executor of the Gangnam-gu H Center Construction Project (hereinafter “instant project”) to the victim at the office of the F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) located in Seocho-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant company”).

The victim also stated that there was no fact that the defendant was living on the same day in the court below, and that there was no fact that the defendant did not talk about the above purport.

E has taken money by deceiving a victim, and the defendant has not taken money by deceiving a victim.

B. The act of the Defendant, as the representative director of the instant company on December 4, 2008, entered into a contract for removal construction works (hereinafter “the instant removal contract”) with the victim and the transfer of KRW 200 million to the account of the instant company to the account of the instant company on November 3, 2008 does not constitute fraud as secondary acts after the deception of the victim by stating that E would make removal works for the victim on November 3, 200 of the same year.

In light of the defendant's role at the time of entering into the removal contract of this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant did not appear to have contributed to the crime of this case in collusion with E.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant was aware that at the time of concluding the removal contract with the victim on December 4, 2008, the company of this case knew that it was not authorized to implement the removal work with the victim, but the defendant was deceiving the victim by concluding the removal contract of this case with the victim.

The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by recognizing the fact that the defendant deceivings the victim.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2020.02.18 2019노1843

-광주고등법원(전주) 2017.12.07 2016나12712

-인천지방법원 2013.07.02 2012고단10510

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.09.06 2012고단2979

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.23 2013고단7703 (1)