logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.03.25 2015노2311
사기
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, ① The Defendant did not deceive the victims, nor did he had the intention to defraud them.

② The victims of each cargo vehicle of this case may receive a loan by exercising a mortgage.

There is no property damage to the victims.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) First, we examine the argument that the defendant did not deceive the victims and did not have any intention to defraud the victims.

Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the court below: (a) deceiving the victims as if the Defendant had the intention or ability to repay the loans, recognizing the fact that the Defendant was unable to repay the loans due to bad financial standing at the time of receiving the loans from the victims; and (b) at least did not have the ability to do so.

It is reasonable to view it.

① At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant was liable for approximately KRW 500,000,000,000 for 270,000 for L corporation M, and there was no particular property (Evidence No. 260 pages).” (2) At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant owned the O-owned land and a house on the ground thereof, but said property value was approximately KRW 170,000,000,000 (Evidence No. 264 of the Evidence No. 3). At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant appears to have extremely poor property status, such as the Defendant’s failure to pay wages to employees.

④ From May 29, 2013 to September 13, 2013, the Defendant purchased each of the instant cargo vehicles with loans from the victims for four months from May 29, 2013.

arrow