(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.12 2017노1224

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 2018.01.12 2017노1224

사기등

Text

All judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. 1) The Defendant did not deceiving L by mistake of fact. 1) The Defendant did not deceive the Defendant.

The defendant could recover the principal of investment to L within six months, or did not say that the Internet sports soil business is legitimate and does not bear any risk, and L also knew that the Internet sports soil business is illegal, and the defendant and the doctor have to conduct the business.

B) At the time, the Defendant had the intent or ability to repay the borrowed amount to L.

C) It is not true that the Defendant was given L a total of KRW 135 million over 19 times, as shown in the crime sight table 1.

The amount that the defendant received to L in connection with the Internet sports discussions is KRW 35 million.

2) The Defendant did not deception the victim’sO.

Attached Form

The crime List 2 No. 1, 2 No. 2, the defendant sold goods and received the price for Q2-type cosmetics monopoly's sales right to the O, and the 5 million won of the net 3 times is paid in consideration of Q2-type cosmetics monopoly's sales right. The sum of the remaining 5 million won in the net 3 times and the KRW 15 million in the attached list of crimes No. 4, 100,000 won in the attached list of crimes is the money received as the investment in the Internet sports soil business.

B) At the time, the Defendant had the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money to theO.

3) The Defendant did not deceiving the R.).

The defendant did not suggest interest and earnings to R, or did not say that the Internet sports soil business is legitimate, and R knew that the above business was illegal and there was a risk burden.

B) At the time, the Defendant had the intent or ability to repay the borrowed money to R.

C) All objective evidence other than the statement of R as to whether the Defendant received 40 million won from R is the borrowed amount.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2017.07.05 2016노1002

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2016.02.04 2015고단1431

-대전지방법원 2018.05.03 2018고단748

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.08.22 2017고단2201

-수원지방법원 2017.12.20 2017고정1080