(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.27 2018노3985

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 2019.09.27 2018노3985

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In full view of the consistent statement of the grounds for appeal by the victim and the fact that there is no adequate financial condition to conclude a lease contract again with the loan, etc. at the time, and that there was no certain revenue, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant has induced the victim who had already been mistakenly involved in the intention and ability to perform the loan and had no intention or ability to perform the loan in one million won per month, even if the victim had rescinded the seizure and collection order of the claim against the victim and the unpaid amount of the goods, such as the defendant's deception, even if the victim had rescinded the seizure and collection order

2. Determination

A. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6110, Feb. 11, 2003).

In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, deceiving the victim by deceiving the Defendant that “The Defendant would pay the amount of the goods which the Defendant failed to pay on face to face, one million won a month, by cancelling the seizure and collection order of the bonds,” on or around March 13, 2016, as stated in the facts charged, because it is difficult to renew the lease contract with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation.”

The defendant was found not guilty on the ground that there is no other evidence to prove the fact that the defendant had intention to do so, or that there is no reasonable doubt, and that there is no other evidence to prove it.

C. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

참조판례

-대법원 2003. 2. 11. 선고 2002도6110 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.07 2018노3496

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2019.05.10 2019고정167

-창원지방법원 2015.02.11 2014노2670

-서울동부지방법원 2013.10.30 2013고정953

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2019.05.24 2019고단8