(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.05.25 2016노1507 | 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) 청주지방법원 2017.05.25 2016노1507

사기등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor of the misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, it can be recognized that the injured person was erroneous at the time of the instant fraud crime, and that the injured person was erroneous, and that the intent of the Defendant’s deception is also recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, among the facts charged in this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court (the penalty amounting to KRW 2,00,000) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court, without any reasonable doubt, proven that the Defendant, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, was deceiving the victim about the ability or intent of repayment or that the victim was omitted due to such mistake, on the grounds of detailed circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

It is insufficient to view this part of the facts charged, and on the grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, not guilty.

2) In light of the following circumstances admitted by the court below as a result of the records of this case, the court below's conclusion is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

A prosecutor, on May 23, 2016, sold M land, the defendant established a provisional registration of the right to claim for the registration of transfer of ownership, to AD on May 23, 2016, and the above provisional registration was cancelled on May 30, 2016, the victim lost his/her right to claim the principal registration based on provisional registration and subsequently lost his/her right to claim the principal registration and eventually became no means to secure the loan. Thus, the prosecutor asserts that the criminal intent of defraudation by the defendant cannot be denied on the ground

However, the right to claim for registration of transfer of ownership.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.09.28 2015노3307

-서울서부지방법원 2017.04.20 2016노1799

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.18 2017노1963

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.09 2015고단8274

-수원지방법원 2017.01.11 2016노4873