logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.10.23 2020노292
사기
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of fraud of September 29, 2018 among the facts charged in the instant case, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the loan from the beginning to the point of view, as the case where: (a) the Defendant opened a beauty room in the name of the victim; (b) the Defendant was engaged in beauty room operation expenses; and (c) the victim was required to obtain a loan; and (d) part of the amount was used for personal purposes; (b) the victim was unaware of money by taking advantage of the fact that it was difficult for the victim to refuse to request additional loan; and (c) the Defendant

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year of suspended sentence for four months of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. A. On September 2018, the summary of this part of the facts charged was false statement that “A defendant would pay the victim a monthly rent and salary for employees if he/she lends money to the victim.” However, the Defendant was willing to use a personal debt or living expenses in return for money from the victim, and even if he/she borrowed money from the victim because there was a large amount of sales in the beauty room, he/she did not have the ability to pay the money. The Defendant deceiving the victim as above and received the above money on the 29th of the same month after he/she got the victim a credit card loan of KRW 20 million.2) The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, cannot be readily concluded that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, at the time of receiving the above card loan of KRW 20,000,000,000 from the victim, was insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant was unaware of this part of the facts charged on the ground that he/she did not have the ability to use it as an individual debt or living expenses.

arrow