(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.01.30 2017노8736 | 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) 수원지방법원 2019.01.30 2017노8736

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In a case where the victim paid any balance by the remaining payment date as originally agreed upon, Defendant 1’s mistake of facts (guilty part of the judgment of the court below) against the victim F, the Defendant could resolve the Defendant’s obligation by utilizing the balance and transfer the ownership of the real estate stated in this part of the facts charged to the said victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges by deceiving this part of the money from the victim is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B) Although the part of the Defendant against the victim C was aware of whether it is possible for the Defendant to operate a restaurant at the victim’s D site, this part of the money was borrowed with respect to a new and renewable energy development project where the Defendant was in progress. Nevertheless, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant acquired this part of money from the victim, is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the part of the 88 million won which the Defendant received from the victim from April 18, 2013 to May 8, 2013 on the part of the 888 million won which the Defendant received from the victim, on the grounds that he/she had the right to operate a restaurant, by deceiving the victim to have the right to operate the restaurant.

On the other hand, with respect to the facts charged in the sum of KRW 190 million that was received after May 29, 2013, it is recognized that the defendant borrowed under the name related to the Indonesia new and renewable energy development project, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant acquired it under the pretext of giving the right to operate the brine, apart from whether a separate crime of fraud can be established. Thus, the defendant was acquitted on the grounds of this.

However, the victim is already about 88 million won to the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.11 2019노61

-서울고등법원 2019.02.15 2018노1345

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.03.13 2013노4070

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2015.08.27 2015고단802

-수원지방법원 2013.09.12 2013고단2118