logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.07.18 2018노1784
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that, at the time of hearing an explanation from the defendant about the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Building F (hereinafter “instant loan”), when the victim installs heating facilities and toilets on the dunes (or dunes) in order to collect fees, the victim deceivings the victim about the important matters of the illegality, and let the owner of the Ba of the instant loan deliver the down payment to the owner of the instant loan, as described in the facts charged, as described in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. The circumstances revealed by the lower court and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant appears to conduct a sales agency business on the basis of the explanation as to the instant loan from the owner of the instant loan, who was delegated by the agricultural company B, the owner of the instant loan, and acting for the Defendant for the sales contract of the instant loan. There is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant was aware of the legal issues related to the construction of the instant loan, regardless of the owner of the instant loan, that the Defendant was directly aware of the legal issues related to the instant loan, and there is no evidence to deem that the instant loan owner, regardless of the owner of the instant loan, was illegally informed the Defendant of the installation of the toilets and heating facilities in the instant loan. ② The instant tea structure of the instant loan itself is deemed unlawful. However, even if the victims followed the legal statements by the victim and the victim’s spouse, the victim’s structure of the instant loan itself is not the installation of the instant loan in the instant sales contract or the heating facilities at the time of the instant loan.

arrow