logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.11.05 2020노1587
사기등
Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. As to Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts (A) fraud against the victim J (2019Da684), there was no deception by the Defendant that “the Defendant would make a full payment three days after lending only ten million won,” as stated in the facts charged, and the victim, not the Defendant, has remitted KRW 3 million to K, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have received the said money from the victim.

(B) As to the theft of the victim V and each assault (2019No950), the Defendant borrowed the above money, not from the victim’s bank, not from the victim’s bank, but from the victim’s bank (the thief) and did not assault the victim as stated in the facts charged.

(C) Regarding the fraud of the victim A(2020 highest 238), it is urgently necessary for the defendant to pay money for the 's salary system' project as stated in the facts charged.

There is no false statement for the victim.

(D) On the part of the Defendant’s fraud against the victim’sO (2019Dadan694), the Defendant’s failure to provide the victim’s coffee was not a normally purchased transaction and could not be exported to the victim through a normal way, and was not delivered to the victim’s desired place (ras). Meanwhile, even though the victim promised to bring the coffee in person with the Vietnam, the Defendant did not go to Vietnam, unlike the promise, even though the victim promised to bring the coffee in person with the Vietnam, and the Defendant was also unable to return the coffee money to the victim. The Defendant also purchased the coffee money and then sold it to the victim, making it impossible to refund the coffee money already purchased. Accordingly, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim or defraud the victim.

(E) As to the fraud and intimidation against the victim AF (2019No684), it was true that the Defendant received KRW 120 million from the victim, but thereafter, paid the amount equivalent to the above amount to the victim and the AS designated by the victim.

arrow