(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.10.19 2016고단838

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) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2016.10.19 2016고단838

사기

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 17, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim E at “D” restaurant located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sung-gu, Seoul, stating that “A house located in the upper house needs to be repaired for a long time. If the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million, he/she will repair it and pay it at a monthly rate of two months.”

However, even if the victim borrowed money from the victim, he/she was thought to pay his/her own personal debt or use it for gambling, and there was no special income at the time, so he/she did not have the intention or ability to pay the borrowed money.

The Defendant received from the victim the amount of KRW 30 million as the borrowed money.

Accordingly, the defendant was given property by deceiving the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Details of financial transactions and the issuance of checks;

1. The defendant's reply to each financial transaction information [the defendant and his defense counsel borrowed 30 million won as gambling money from the victim and did not have the intention to commit fraud, and the defendant had the intent and ability to repay. However, according to the evidence adopted earlier, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant borrowed 30 million won from the victim in terms of the cost of repairing the building as stated in the facts charged and did not repay it (the defendant is true that he borrowed 30 million won from the victim and borrowed 30 million won in consideration of the cost of repairing the building (the defendant was not able to lend money to the prosecutor.). It is true that he borrowed money from the complainant, so that he would not be able to say that he would be able to use it as gambling money if he borrowed 30 million won from the complainant.]

) At the time of the borrowing of the Defendant’s economic condition (a part of the borrowed amount was disbursed to the loan interest).

In light of the above, the Defendant borrowed the instant loan.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2014.01.23 2012고단3117

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2019.06.20 2019고단418

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2013.11.22 2013고단1713

-서울남부지방법원 2016.10.19 2016고단2854

-전주지방법원 2019.07.16 2018고단2025