(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.01.12 2016노889

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) 서울서부지방법원 2017.01.12 2016노889

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim C, he did not wish to purchase materials to purchase the materials, and even if he did not have the intent or ability to repay the money to the victim, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the charge of this case by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On March 8, 2010, the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant made a false statement to the Defendant that “on the one hand, the Defendant would pay back money to the Defendant in one month because he/she borrowed money to purchase scams, such as kimchi and salted fish, in order to carry out funeral.”

However, in fact, the Defendant had a debt borrowed by the number of days at the time, and the rent deposit did not remain due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the monthly rent or the amount of the rent run by the Defendant. Since the payment of interest on the existing number of days was not possible due to the fact that the Defendant’s payment of interest on other debts was not possible, the Defendant did not think of to pay the interest on other debts, and even if he borrowed money from the said victim, he did not have any intent or ability to pay the interest on other debts.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and received KRW 3,00,000 for 3,00,000,000 for the purpose of borrowing from the victim, i.e., on or around April 12, 2010, KRW 3,000,00 for the same purpose as on June 21, 2010, KRW 2,000,00 for the same purpose as on July 20, 2010, KRW 3,000 for the same purpose as on July 20, 2010, KRW 3,000 for the same purpose as on October 22, 2010, and KRW 3,000 for the same purpose as on October 29, 2010, KRW 19,000 for the delivery as on or around October 3, 200.

2. The lower court determined: (a) As to whether the Defendant, who did not have the intent or ability to repay, deceivings the victim; and (b) as to whether the financial status of the Defendant, such as the use of bonds, was not good, the facts charged

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.06.23 2016고정196

-인천지방법원 2018.10.11 2018고단3449

-대구지방법원 2018.05.04 2017고단3772

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.01.06 2016고단2590

-서울남부지방법원 2018.01.11 2016고단4986