(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.06.20 2017노174 | 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) 광주지방법원 2017.06.20 2017노174

사기

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) At the time of mistake of the fact, the Defendant, at the time of mistake, lent the instant vehicle to the victim with KRW 15 million and used it as collateral, and the amount of the obligation, such as mortgage and seizure, exceeds KRW 6 million.

On the other hand, the victim provided 14 million won and 14 million won and 14 million won and 14 million won and 14 million won and 14.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. In full view of all the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court and the lower court, the Defendant, without notifying the Defendant that the instant vehicle is not able to register ownership transfer and is set up a right to collateral security of KRW 60 million, can be recognized that the Defendant acquired the Defendant by acquiring KRW 14 million from the price for sale to the victim. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

① The victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, “The vehicle of this case is owned by the victim at the time of the defendant, and the amount of tax to approximately KRW 6 million, and the purchase price is KRW 20 million, and the remainder of KRW 14 million, except the above tax, will immediately transfer ownership to the owner of the vehicle, in contact with the owner of the vehicle.

In addition, a specific and consistent statement was made to the effect that the Defendant paid KRW 14 million to the Defendant.

(2) At the time, there was a talk that the defendant and the victim were divided by accompanying the victim.

F. F. In the investigative agency, the Defendant said as above.

The statement is consistent with the above statement of the injured party.

③ The Defendant also has the right to collateral security on the instant vehicle at an investigative agency.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2016.12.23 2016고단4076

-서울북부지방법원 2018.04.27 2017노2324

-광주지방법원 2017.09.26 2017노41

-광주지방법원 2017.07.18 2016노4394

-부산지방법원 2014.11.13 2014고정4156