logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.01.23 2014노1593
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's assertion as to the reason why the defendant borrowed money from the victim D and the defendant's assertion as to the place of using the borrowed money is not reliable, and some of the witness of the court below's testimony is not reliable, while D's statement may be reliable in compliance with specific and empirical rules.

And according to D's statement, it is recognized that the defendant deceivings money as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts of innocence.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged is premised on the Defendant’s deception that he would complete the registration of establishment of a neighboring commercial building located in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) and that D was made in an investigative agency and the court below’s court. The following circumstances acknowledged by the record: (i) if the completion of the registration of establishment of a neighboring commercial building in the instant commercial building was a major condition for money lending, D was, at least before or after lending KRW 47 million on May 11, 2012, but D was ordinarily required to request the Defendant to change the registration of establishment of a neighboring commercial building and actively demand the Defendant to attend the said commercial building on or before August 18, 2012, D appears not to have actively demanded the Defendant to change the registration of establishment of a neighboring commercial building in the Bupyeong-gu, Incheon; and (ii) D was made by the Defendant’s new witness to whom the Defendant would have been engaged in the instant commercial building in the investigation agency, but it was not reasonable for the Defendant to have taken out the aforementioned part of D’s statement from the lower court.

arrow