(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.04.22 2016노727 | 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) 수원지방법원 2016.04.22 2016노727

사기

Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

except that this judgment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) The prosecutor who alleged that the facts charged were not specified is not distinguished from the remitted part of Defendant A’s salary in relation to the fraud described in the paragraph (1) as indicated in the judgment of the court below, but charged the whole remittance amount of the victim with the amount obtained by deceit. The facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below 2-2-b. In relation to the fraud described in the paragraph (1), Defendant A did not separate from the part using the vehicle as a business activity and the part using it for private business, and took profits equivalent to the amount of the lease

Since this part of the facts charged is not specified and thus the prosecution procedure becomes null and void in violation of the provisions of law, and thus, the prosecution procedure should be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since the court below convicted Defendant A of the facts charged, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The amount remitted by the victim who asserted that there is no deceptive act is paid to the expenses and benefits necessary for the contract owner, and the vehicle is also given for the business activities, and the defendant A actually performed the activities for the contract owner for the victim using the above expenses and the vehicle, and thus, it did not receive the money by deception or acquire the profit equivalent to the lease fee. However, the court below found the defendant A guilty of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misconception of facts.

(3) Even if the facts charged against Defendant A are found guilty, the sentence (eight months) that the court below sentenced to Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence that the lower court sentenced Defendant B (2 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The facts charged are specified.

유사 판례

-대법원 2019.10.18 2019도9984

-광주지방법원 2018.01.24 2017노3375

-대법원 2013.02.28 2012도16278

-서울남부지방법원 2020.01.31 2018노1987

-서울동부지방법원 2020.02.06 2019노1784