(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.09.30 2016노2140 | 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) 대구지방법원 2016.09.30 2016노2140

사기

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, even if the victim transferred the ownership of the land of this case, the defendant is fully recognized as having taken over the ownership of the land of this case by deceiving the victim, even though he did not have the intent or ability to succeed to the loan with the land of this case as security

Even so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criminal intent to acquire fraud, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the criminal intent to acquire fraud, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court’s judgment 1) In light of the facts and circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant deceptioned the victim as to the facts charged in the instant case, or that the victim completed the registration of transfer of ownership by deceiving the Defendant.

Inasmuch as it is difficult to readily recognize that the Defendant had a criminal intent to obtain fraud, the instant facts charged in the instant case was proven without reasonable doubt.

The charges of this case were acquitted on the ground that they cannot be seen.

2) The intent of the crime of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of the judgment of this court, is to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, content of the crime, and the process of transaction before and after the crime unless the Defendant is led. The criminal intent is sufficient not to be a conclusive intention but to be dolusent intention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008; 2007Do8726, Aug. 21, 2008). In addition, as a subjective element of the constituent element of the crime, willful negligence refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is uncertain and it is permissible by expressing that there was an intentional intention.

In order to do so, there is awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, and it is also possible to recognize the risk of the crime.

참조판례

-대법원 2008. 2. 28. 선고 2007도10416 판결

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2016.04.26 2016노195

-창원지방법원 2017.01.11 2016노2850

-춘천지방법원 2017.08.17 2016노956

-서울동부지방법원 2017.02.09 2016노825

-수원지방법원 2018.11.16 2018노3960