logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.17 2015노3856
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding the Defendant had the intent and ability to repay when receiving a loan from the U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. C. C. E.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following circumstances are acknowledged. (A) At the time of receiving a loan from the victimized company, the Defendant was examined as to the current status of monthly income, property, and debts. At that time, the Defendant’s monthly income was confirmed as KRW 4 million, total amount of debts KRW 1689.6 million, and the principal and interest to be repaid each month was confirmed as KRW 2.6 million.

(No. 22) However, in addition to the debt confirmed as above, the Defendant was also granted a loan of KRW 8.1 million from the Fair Savings Bank on November 26, 2012, which is the day before the case (No. 18 and 23 of the evidence record). On November 27, 2012, the day of the instant case, the Defendant was additionally granted a loan of KRW 17,000,000,000, including the loan amount of KRW 4 million on November 27, 2012. The victim company was unable to know at all of the above circumstances at the time of the lending. (C) In all of the above loans, the principal and interest to be repaid every month by the Defendant appears to have been almost frightd in the monthly income of the Defendant, and the Defendant who had the family members to support was insufficient to cope with the Defendant’s own monthly income only.

As to this, the Defendant stated in the police investigation that “the monthly income was impossible to repay the above loans.”

(No. 18 pages of Evidence No. 1) The Defendant, at the time of receiving the loan, prepared a written confirmation that there was no plan to withdraw within three months, but retired from a company which was enrolled in approximately one month after receiving the loan, and paid only three-thirds of the principal and interest.

arrow