logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.05.23 2013노1067
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) Fraud 1) Fraud with the victim D. Since the Defendant was sufficiently able to repay the borrowed money to the victim D, there is no criminal intent of defraudation, in light of the following: (i) the Defendant borrowed money from the victim D, offered Friet’s sales contract as security; (ii) the ownership of the aforementioned Lriart was transferred to the trust company; (iii) the trust was terminated and the ownership was expected to be returned if the sale was effected; and (ii) the Defendant was fully able to repay the borrowed money to the victim D; and (iii) the Defendant’s fraud with the victim G again borrowed part of the borrowed money from H; (ii) the Defendant attempted to repay the borrowed money to the victim G, but the victim was sufficiently able to receive the borrowed money due to disputes with H; and thus, the Defendant is not recognized as a criminal intent of defraudation.

B. In the case of fraud against D of the victim of unfair sentencing, the actual amount of damage is less than the amount stated in the facts charged, the victim D wanted to take a prior action against the defendant by full repayment of loan obligations, and the overall circumstances of the judgment of the court below are too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) The criminal intent of defraudation, which is a subjective constituent element of a crime of fraud, of the relevant legal doctrine, shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances such as the Defendant’s financial history, environment, details of the crime, and the process of performing transactions before and after the crime, insofar as the Defendant does not make a confession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10416, Feb. 28, 2008). 2) The lower court’s judgment on the fraud against victim D and the evidence duly adopted and examined at the trial prior to the remand.

arrow