(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.04.05 2016노122

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) 의정부지방법원 2016.04.05 2016노122

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the defendant's act in the facts stated in the judgment of the court below in the misapprehension of legal principles is not a crime of embezzlement, it is unlawful for the court below to find the defendant guilty without any changes in the indictment.

B. In fact, the Defendant was able and willing to import and supply the stove with the Defendant’s 90,000 Won, but the Defendant was merely unable to import and supply the stove as scheduled due to the following circumstances: (a) the payment was delayed or delivery was delayed in the United States; (b) the customer’s demand for refund was delayed; and (c) the delivery was delayed.

However, the defendant brought his own money to compensate for damages to his customers, and the victim did not suffer any damages.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty by recognizing the criminal intent of defraudation, and there is an error of misunderstanding the facts.

Moreover, the lower court, without any evidence, received 5 million won from the injured party on October 29, 2012 of the facts constituting the crime 2 of the Defendant’s judgment, through his seal, without any evidence.

The recognition was recognized.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (two years of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the nominal owner of the “E” business, which is the Internet shopping mall site, is a victim. As such, the money deposited or settled by the customer through the said website is owned by the victim (the account that received cash at the time of cash settlement or by a credit card company, etc. at the time of cash settlement is also a bank account in the name of the victim). As can be seen below, if the Defendant deceptioned the victim as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below and received a remittance of the purchase price from the victim, thereby deceiving the victim to acquire the goods owned by the victim, which constitutes a crime of fraud, not a crime of occupational embezzlement.

Therefore, it is true.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2015.12.18 2014고단655

-의정부지방법원 2014.10.23 2014고정338

-대전지방법원 2014.11.27 2013노2785

-창원지방법원 2014.09.05 2014고단710

-수원지방법원 2018.08.24 2018노1609