(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.07.01 2015노735

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) 서울남부지방법원 2016.07.01 2015노735

사기등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

On the part 1 and 2 of the crime list (1), among the crimes of Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant's judgment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Facts 1) Fact-finding No. 2 of the facts stated in the judgment below: The defendant shall not be deemed to have obtained the above 70 million won, since there was no actual acceptance of the attorney-at-law with respect to gambling-related entertainers, and there was no fact that the attorney-at-law was actually consulted on the contents of the case, since the victim E did not actually have consulted on the above 70 million won, it cannot be deemed that the defendant acquired the above 70 million won.

2) Criminal facts No. 10 of the judgment of the court below: The victim W gave AJ 1 million U.S. dollars to the Red Sea.

However, the Defendant’s assertion is merely merely about KRW 80,00,000,000,000 paid money from the AJ. If W’s statement was made, the AJ made the so-called “delivery Accident” by the defense counsel. On July 6, 2015, the defense counsel asserts that there is a mistake of facts as to the part of [Attachment Nos. 2 through 5, 4, and 5] in the list of crimes under [Attachment No. 2] in the judgment of the court below on July 6, 2015, in the statement of the reasons for appeal as to the supplementary appeal, but since the above supplementary appeal was submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the reasons for appeal, the part exceeding the scope of supplement of the reasons for appeal submitted on July 2, 2015, is not subject to the judgment of the court.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years and eight years of imprisonment) is unfair because it is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the argument of the crime No. 2 in the holding of the court below, in particular, according to the victim E's statement at the court below and the court below, and the letter of delivery by the defendant to the victim E, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed a second re-crime by the sequence No. 1 in the annexed crime list No. 2 in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant committed the crime.

유사 판례

-대법원 2017.06.15 2017도3359

-수원지방법원 2016.01.20 2015노1394

-의정부지방법원 2017.02.02 2016노2722

-부산지방법원 2021.01.22 2020노2493

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.22 2018노1072