logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.12.21 2017노2627
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant was convicted of the success in the business through the acquisition of G building (hereinafter “instant business”).

In fact, at the time when the defendant received money from the victims, it was impossible to expect that the project of this case will be lost.

Most of the funds for the instant project were to be borrowed from the conduct of Gyeongnam, a lending bank, but the instant project led to the failure of the instant project by presenting conditions different from those of the loans initially presented from the execution of the instant contract after entering into a provisional contract for acquiring a building.

Therefore, there was a willful negligence in fraud committed against the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B) In addition, the Defendant received money from the victims after fully explaining the details of the instant project to the victims, and the Defendant committed a deceptive act against the victims.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) As to the fraud against the victim F, since the above victim was between the defendant and the defendant, the above victim invested KRW 300 million in the defendant, and only requested the purchase of the apartment house or house through the court auction after the lapse of three years.

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion and accepted only F's false statement in violation of the rules of evidence.

3) As to the fraud against the victim H, the above victim does not lend to the defendant an investment of KRW 85 million in a situation where the victim was in a remote relationship with the defendant and is well aware of the instant project.

4) Ultimately, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous as a matter of law.

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

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts

arrow