(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.01.21 2014노3753 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.01.21 2014노3753

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that if the defendant knew that he would not use the money as business related costs, the injured party would not lend money to the defendant. As long as the defendant borrowed money by deceiving the purpose of use, the act of deception of the defendant is recognized, and the defendant could also be recognized in full view of the situation of the defendant's obligations at that time and the fact that the defendant could not repay the borrowed money up

2. In the case of borrowing money from a person who borrowed money from another person, if the other party fails to comply with the true notice about the method of raising funds to repay the borrowed money, the crime of fraud is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5382 delivered on September 15, 2005). In full view of the following facts and circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below, despite recognizing that the defendant cannot repay the borrowed money according to the agreement, can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant borrowed money from the damaged party by deceiving the use of the borrowed money, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the court below acquitted the facts of this case.

1) The victim consistently used money in relation to the delivery from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to loan KRW 25 million to the defendant.

statement is made.

2) In addition, in a case where the victim simply borrowed money from the Defendant to the investigative agency, the victim stated to the effect that he would not have borrowed money, and in fact, the Defendant and the victim have the right to deliver and operate the money if they were to borrow the money after the end of the lending period.

참조판례

-대법원 2005. 9. 15. 선고 2003도5382 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.11.16 2018노5346

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.01 2017노950

-광주지방법원 2016.07.12 2016노77

-전주지방법원 2017.04.28 2017노93

-창원지방법원 2016.05.26 2016노205