(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.09.01 2016노313

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 2016.09.01 2016노313

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant received KRW 40 million in the name of rebates, and even if it borrowed from domestic affairs, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim, and was sufficiently capable of performing obligations at the time.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On February 25, 2008, the summary of the facts charged by the Defendant, at around 17:00 on February 25, 2008, told the E office where the Defendant in Gangnam-gu Seoul is a director, and the victim F, the customer representative, to the victim F, who is a representative of the E company, and made a false statement to the effect that “If the Defendant borrowed only 40 million won, he/she shall be paid back after this mold, and he/she may be fully repaid.”

However, the Defendant was only a director who owns only 30% shares of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”). At the time of the Defendant’s monthly income, the monthly income was KRW 4 million. However, the Defendant paid the interest of KRW 1.6 million to the lending company, such as the LAWnsh and Hyundai Capital, and paid the loan interest of KRW 600,000 at the monthly rent. On January 25, 2008, the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay the balance of the passbook even if he borrowed money from the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was given the delivery of KRW 40 million on February 25, 2008.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed through records and arguments, the lower court determined that the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, could recognize the fact that the Defendant borrowed money from the victim as well as could not repay the borrowed money at least at least at the time of the borrowing of the instant case, and sentenced the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, even though the Defendant knew that he could not repay the borrowed money, as stated in the facts charged.

In this case.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.02.18 2015고정880

-전주지방법원 2018.02.08 2017노1045

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2016.10.07 2016고단904

-춘천지방법원 2019.12.13 2019노900

-서울북부지방법원 2015.01.16 2014노1042