(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.04.24 2019노3320 | 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) 부산지방법원 2020.04.24 2019노3320

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

except that the ruling shall be made for one year from the date of the final judgment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not intend to acquire money by deceiving the victim at the time of borrowing KRW 20 million from the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for four months) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court can fully recognize the fact that the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim of KRW 20 million.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① The Defendant stated at an investigative agency that “at the time of borrowing KRW 20 million from the victim, a financial institution was already provided to the maximum extent, and that he was not able to borrow money from the victim because he or she did not have any money. Therefore, he or she has no choice but to take money from the victim (Evidence No. 1 and No. 39 of the Evidence Records). At the time, two months was 12, but there was about KRW 40 million for 12, and the office monthly and management expenses were about KRW 2.5 million from January 2016 (Evidence No. 1 & No. 41 of the Evidence No. 41 of the Evidence Record), financial institutions were combined with 123 financing, and loans were about KRW 100,000 for 150,000.

In light of the fact that “the defendant is stated as “(Evidence No. 1)” (Evidence No. 41 pages), the defendant seems to have no ability to repay the money even if he borrowed the money from the victim. ② The defendant thought that the investigative agency may not repay the money by January 31, 2017, which is the due date for the repayment of the money borrowed from the victim.

At the time, the base table was set.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2013.08.14 2013노2724

-의정부지방법원 2016.10.06 2015노2243

-서울고등법원 2013.08.16 2013노875

-광주지방법원 2014.04.10 2013노2803

-부산지방법원 2019.09.19 2019노663