(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.10.26 2017노2619 | 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 2017.10.26 2017노2619

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel

A. In relation to the 7th anniversary of the annual list of crimes in the attached Form No. 1 of the facts charged, the Defendant received 5 million won from C on June 16, 2016 for the benefit of 5 million won, and there is no fact of deceiving C by deceiving C.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the criminal defendant was found to be erroneous for most of the crimes and there is no record of criminal punishment, the sentence of the court below that sentenced a fine of KRW 4 million is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As alleged in the grounds of appeal, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the victim C under the name of advance payment of benefits in the annexed crime No. 1 in the annexed crime list No. 7 of the facts charged, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and that there was no fraud by deceiving the victim. The lower court clearly and consistently stated the facts that ① the victim C had stated from the investigative agency to the court below that “the Defendant had borrowed KRW 5 million from 5 million because she had to repay his father’s corporate bonds,” and that the Defendant received KRW 5 million as benefits from the Defendant’s payment.” The Defendant stated the method of the crime and the situation before and after the crime specifically and specifically, there was credibility in the statement, and ② the Defendant received KRW 5 million as benefits.

Although there is a change in the column of the Defendant’s passbook’s “statement” as well, the above argument by the Defendant is only raised in the court of original instance. Moreover, since the Defendant had already lent money over several times in the court of original instance and did not receive any interest rate, there is a need for a new loan of money.

If allowances are paid by the defendant for the last time after the contract for sale in lots, the benefits shall be paid.

유사 판례

-광주고등법원 (전주) 2018.11.13 2017노221

-서울북부지방법원 2014.06.26 2014노176

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.08 2015노666

-인천지방법원 2018.08.16 2018고단2200

-서울북부지방법원 2017.10.19 2017노811