(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.22 2017노1212

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.22 2017노1212

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the Defendant, as stated in the facts of the lower judgment, borrowed money from the injured party is recognized.

However, although the Defendant purchased goods with the above borrowed money and intended to pay the victim's borrowed money to the customer, the above borrowed money was not paid to the victim because the above transaction did not proceed smoothly, and the victim was also aware of the overall matters such as the business situation, business, profit structure, etc. of the Defendant Company E (hereinafter "Defendant Company"), which was operated by the Defendant, and directly confirmed the progress of the supply contract on the excursion ship with the Defendant Company, which was the business partner.

Therefore, since the defendant did not have the intention of deceiving the victim, and the victim also lent money with the knowledge of the situation in which the defendant is faced, the defendant obtained money by deceiving the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, deceiving the victim and defrauded the victim a total of KRW 27.5 million (hereinafter “the loan in this case”).

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

In addition to the debt of this case at the time, the Defendant had a debt of KRW 2.7 million, which was paid by the injured party as a business investment deposit on December 2013, and the Defendant had a debt of KRW 130 million for other C.

In this regard, the defendant is not 30,000 won in New Zealand.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.05.09 2017고단5526

-수원지방법원 2018.06.05 2017고단4923

-대구지방법원 2016.08.04 2016고단2926

-서울서부지방법원 2017.12.20 2016고단3044

-창원지방법원 2017.05.25 2016노3173