logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.11.07 2017노2004
사기
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding Defendant did not run as the vice-president of G University to the victim, nor did the victim receive money from the victim as remuneration for hiring the faculty members of G University.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court recognized the fact that the Defendant acquired KRW 100 million from the injured party in return for hiring the injured party’s children to G University teachers and staff. The lower court’s determination is justifiable even if it was examined in the first instance trial, and thus, rejected the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact.

(1) The victim was aware of the Defendant as the vice-president of a G University from the time when he/she files a complaint with an investigative agency to the court below’s decision, and paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant in return for hiring the victims’ children to the faculty members of G University.

Specific and consistent statements were made.

② After the victim’s line line on KRW 100 million to the Defendant, the victim’s text messages or Kakao Stockholm messages sent and sent respectively to the Defendant, E, and D, and the victim’s line lineed 100 million won to the Defendant, and the situation where the victim was prepared to work together with the victim’s children on the following day is also consistent with the victim’s aforementioned statement.

③ Although the Defendant alleged that he borrowed KRW 100 million from the injured party, it is against the rule of experience that the victim, who was entirely unaware of the Defendant, borrowed a large amount of KRW 100 million from his seat and lent it to the Defendant as a person without interest.

In addition, the victim continued to return KRW 100 million from that time when he/she was not employed in G University even though the degree of one month after his/her line was transferred to the defendant.

arrow