beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.04.23 2017노2847

사기등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserts that the sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended execution in August, a fine of 600,000 won for community service, 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the statements by victims and police officers, the prosecutor found the Defendant to have taken the instant taxi without the intention or ability to pay the taxi fee from the beginning.

Although it can be fully recognized, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the charge of this portion of the charge is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment

The argument is asserted.

2) The court below asserts that the above sentence imposed by the court below is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On October 01, 2016, the Defendant of this part of the facts charged: (a) was committed in front of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Commercial Building on or around 03:45, 201; and (b) was committed as if he would normally pay a taxi fee even if he did not have the intent or ability to pay the taxi fee; (c) was boarding a e-business taxi operated by the victim D ( South, 56 years old); and (d) arrived at 17 in the Ge-si Village after having arrived at 142, Seoyang-gu, Seosan, Seoyang-gu, Busan Metropolitan City; and (e) was refused to pay 34,000 won for the taxi fee from the

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to 34,000 won from the victim.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted of this part of the facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

(c)

Examining the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, a thorough examination of all the circumstances revealed by the lower court. As such, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant was on board the instant taxi without the intention or ability to pay taxi charges from the beginning.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, this part.