(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.07.20 2018노415 | 리걸엔진

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) 울산지방법원 2018.07.20 2018노415

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles that the Defendant received a total of KRW 4,375,00 from the damaged person on seven occasions from January 31, 2008 to August 1, 2008. However, this is the Defendant’s repayment of part of the amount that the Defendant lent to the injured person from October 2005 to December 2007, and the Defendant received from the damaged person a total of KRW 4,375,00 from the damaged person. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, the lower court could fully recognize the fact that the Defendant, while having no intent or ability to repay, deceives the victim about a total of 4,375 million won, and thereby, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

① The victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, “If the Defendant, around January 2008, lent money to the victim in return for the purchase of equipment, he/she would sell the equipment later and complete payment.”

“Along with the loan of money,” the victim lent KRW 4,375 million to the Defendant on January 31, 2008, from that time on seven occasions until August 1, 2008, including lending KRW 20 million to the Defendant.

“The statement was made.”

The statements that correspond to the above facts charged of this case are consistent with the main part of the facts charged of this case, and their credibility is recognized in line with the objective evidence, such as the details of account transactions between the defendant and the victim.

(2) Even if a statement is made by a defendant to an investigative agency, the defendant shall remain in court around 2008.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.12.13 2017노1503

-울산지방법원 2017.01.13 2016노1035

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.29 2015노902

-인천지방법원 2021.01.15 2019노4476

-울산지방법원 2018.04.26 2018고단179