logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.08.21 2015노865
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of this case as included in the facts charged in the crime of this case where he acquired this part of this money under the name of a money invested in a game room, and although the defendant paid interest equivalent to KRW 63.5 million to the victim, it is erroneous that the judgment of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the total amount of interest paid to the victim. The judgment of the court below misunderstanding the fact that the judgment of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (eight months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a crime of fraud, the content of which is the acceptance of property in determining the assertion of mistake of facts, if there is a delivery of property due to deception, it itself constitutes an infringement on the victim's property, thereby constituting a crime of fraud, and the considerable consideration was paid.

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

Even if the crime of fraud does not affect the establishment of the crime of fraud, even if some of the price has been paid, the fraud amount is not the difference between the value of the property given from the victim and the value of the property received.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7470 Decided January 25, 2007, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant received a total of KRW 1,300,000 from June 30, 2006 to July 16, 2008, a sum of eight hundred and thirty hundred million from the victim’s investment in a game room as shown in the attached Table of Crimes List as stated in the court below’s judgment. However, the defendant did not actually invest the money received from the victim in the game room and consumed it as living expenses, etc.

arrow