logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2019.08.23 2019노288
사기
Text

[Defendant A] The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Defendant .

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) As to “2017 order 440” did not mean that Defendant A borrowed money from the victim E at the cost of the purchase of machinery, but it clearly notified the Defendant’s father G lending to be used for the remainder of the loan. Therefore, there is no fact that the loan belongs to the purpose of borrowing.

B) As to “2017 Man-Ma716”, Defendant B, who actually operates F, borrowed money as indicated in the facts charged, from Defendant B, and Defendant B, who was the representative of the above company, was merely the same in the same place when Defendant B provided business explanation to the victim N. When Defendant B exported animal drugs to Defendant B at the time, Defendant B believed the horses of Defendant B, and did not have the intent to obtain money from Defendant A. c. c. c. 2018 Man-Ma28) with respect to “2018 Man-Ma28”, Defendant B borrowed money from Defendant B by requiring the establishment of the funds for establishment of the corporation, and it was inevitable to register Defendant A’s father as his father’s representative in order to obtain youth start-up funds, and thus Defendant B received money from Defendant B’s account.

(2) Defendant A was unable to engage in activities due to the lack of funds for the Company while working for the Company, set forth in the list of crimes Nos. 2 through 8, and Defendant A deposited money with G head of G, the representative of the Company.

In the end, the defendant B, who is the actual operator of F, borrowed.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. B) According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (not guilty part against Defendant B), the lower court found Defendant B not guilty of the above facts charged, despite the fact that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A about November 30, 2012 in the instant fraud crime, in collusion with Defendant B, committed the crime around 2017Da716 case.

arrow