(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.07.25 2018노1160 | 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) 울산지방법원 2019.07.25 2018노1160

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: (a) At the time of the instant loan, the Defendant: (b) borrowed the funds in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the instant loan”) from the victim on December 24, 2010, to use the instant loan funds as company operating expenses; and (c) paid the progress payment for H&A on the part of the victim under the victim’s understanding.

Therefore, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim at the time of borrowing the instant loan.

② Upon receipt of the progress payment for H created construction works, the instant loan was able to repay the loan, but it was impossible for creditors to ex post facto repay the loan due to unexpected circumstances at the time of the loan loan, which was an assignment order of creditors I, and there was sufficient ability and intent to repay at the time of the loan.

③ On April 2012, the Defendant repaid KRW 40 million, which is a part of the instant loan.

Even in this point, the defendant has no intention to commit fraud.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of all the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that the Defendant, even if having borrowed money from the victim at the time of the instant loan under the name of deposit of the annual capital within one week, as stated in the facts constituting the crime, by deceiving the victim and receiving the borrowed money as stated in the judgment, and that there was a criminal intent to obtain the borrowed money, and that at the time there was a criminal intent to obtain the borrowed money.

(1) The victim shall be entitled to the victim’s “Matir capital at the end of the company.”

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2019.09.25 2018노2176

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.22 2016노175

-수원지방법원 2014.09.18 2013노6252

-광주지방법원 2018.04.17 2017노3241

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2016.09.30 2016고단271