(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.05.10 2016노711

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) 의정부지방법원 2016.05.10 2016노711

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant did not borrow money from the injured party, but did not acquire the security money after concluding a lease contract with the injured party.

2) A lease agreement was prepared only for 1/2 of the instant operating rights, and G’s deposit is merely KRW 100 million, and fraud is not established.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below: (i) the defendant first made an investment of KRW 2.5 million in the victim; and (ii) the defendant did not provide money only KRW 125 million in the case of the victim; and (iii) the defendant and the victim made an agreement with the victim to pay only KRW 50 million in the case of a lease agreement made between the defendant and the victim. If the lease agreement made between the victim were to secure the loan, it is impossible to explain the phenomenon that the deposit would be reduced in the amount to be reduced, and (iv) the defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim in the lawsuit for the return of the lease deposit that the victim raised against the P Co., Ltd.

The defendant alleged that he had asserted (see Articles 35 and 633 of the Investigation Records) and 3, the defendant argued that "the victim would have concluded a false rental contract." However, if the conclusion of a false rental contract was in accordance with the victim's proposal, it would be unreasonable for the defendant to conclude a lease contract similar to G, J, and K (see Articles 12 through 14 of the Investigation Records), and 4, the defendant transferred 16,427,90 won to the victim over 13 times from October 10 to June 25, 2012 as indicated in the following table. In light of the fact that it is reasonable to view that the amount monthly remittance is not certain and that it is not an interest fee, the defendant has concluded a lease contract with the victim.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.12.01 2017노5242

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2017.03.15 2017고정51

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.18 2017노866

-인천지방법원 2017.09.01 2017노2015

-부산지방법원 2016.08.10 2016고정2028