logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.06.04 2014노3888
무고등
Text

All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) 1 Since the Defendant is unable to obtain a loan under his own name, the Defendant merely transferred the ownership of Nel in M’s proposal to G in the name of G, and did not sell the instant franchise to G, F, etc. for KRW 3.9 billion.

The letter of agreement (2014 Highest 3220) and the power of attorney (25th number of evidence in the case No. 2014 Highest 3220) are merely prepared and issued for security.

(2) Even if the Defendant transferred the ownership of the instant franchise to G who is a provisional registration security interest, G cannot be deemed to have acquired the ownership of the franchise unless the settlement procedure between G who is a provisional registration security interest and the Defendant, the debtor, has been completed.

③ Ultimately, in light of the above various circumstances, the owner of the 3.1 billion won loaned with the instant telecom as security is the Defendant, who is the owner of the instant telecom.

Therefore, there is no obligation to return KRW 180,462,441 to G, etc., so embezzlement is not established.

In addition, since G et al. have a duty to return the money remitted from the defendant to the defendant, who is the owner of the loan, without returning it, it is not a crime of false accusation even if the defendant filed a complaint against G et al. in fraud

B. The Defendant signed and sealed the instant power of attorney without stating the “amount delegated” and “amount delegated” as well as the “amount delegated” as the “amount delegated,” and then, this part was written at will thereafter.

Therefore, even if the defendant filed a complaint against G, etc. as a crime of altering private documents and uttering of altered private documents, the crime of false accusation is not established.

C. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this case is erroneous.

arrow