(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.03.15 2016고단2818

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 성남지원 2017.03.15 2016고단2818

사기

Text

The accused shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operates a steel company called “D” in China.

around November 2013, the Defendant is not enough to make an investment in a good item with the victim E in an influent restaurant in the trade name in the Chinese strong sular tenant located.

A false statement was made to the effect that the 15% interest per annum shall be paid at the time of lending money, and that the return of the principal shall be returned within three months at any time.

However, at the time of fact, the Defendant was not in good economic condition to the extent that the annual fee of the F golf course membership was not paid. Moreover, the Defendant was unable to repay the F golf course membership loan 4,000,000 on December 31, 2008 to G. Around September 17, 2012, there was a default on bills equivalent to US$ 513,792.89 on September 17, 2012. Around January 2, 2014 and January 20, 2014, there was no intention or ability to repay the principal within three months.

On December 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) by deceiving the victim; (b) obtained the above draft from the victim to the I Account of the Defendant Company on December 2, 2013; (c) obtained the said draft from the victim on December 2, 2013; (d) obtained the said draft from the victim to the I Account of the Defendant Company on January 20, 2014; and (e) obtained the said draft from the victim on December 2, 2013; and (e) obtained the said draft from the victim to the I Account of the Defendant Company on January 20, 200.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s defense counsel and the Defendant’s defense counsel borrowed 500,000 bills from the injured person for the purpose of investing in the steel industry from January 2014 to the point of view that the game of the Chinese steel industry was faced with extreme drop and the Defendant’s business body was considered to be the enemy, thereby preventing the Defendant from repaying the borrowed amount. In the end, the Defendant did not deceiving the injured person at the time of the instant borrowing, nor did the Defendant had the intent to repay or had the ability to repay.

c) a change;

B. 1) Subjectiveness of fraud.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.06.07 2017고단1430

-대구고등법원 2017.12.14 2017노463

-청주지방법원 2017.11.22 2016고단2015

-광주지방법원 2021.02.16 2020노3094

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2016.09.30 2016고단271