logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.10.22 2015노867
전자금융거래법위반등
Text

All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant made a false report and statement to the police that he had threatened the victim D, his father, in order to put his wife into the tea, in order to go to the tea, and there is no threat to the victim.

Nevertheless, since the second instance court rendered a guilty verdict of this part of the facts charged, it erred by misunderstanding the facts in the second instance judgment and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The fine of 2.5 million won imposed by the first instance court on the accused and the imprisonment of 2.6 months imposed by the second instance is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the defendant's assertion of ex officio, the prosecutor examined the case at the trial of the court below, and applied for the amendment of indictment with respect to the case of 2015No984, which is the appeal case of the second judgment, which is the case of the second judgment of the court of the court below, by threat to special existence, the name of the crime was applied for the amendment of indictment with respect to the case of 2015No984, which is the case of the second judgment of the court of the court below. This court permitted it and decided to consolidate the case of appeal against the judgment below, and the trial court decided to concurrently examine the case of each appeal against the defendant. The

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the second instance judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant requested the Defendant to lend money to the victim under the influence of alcohol at the victim D’s house, his father, but the victim had a knife in the kitchen where the victim did not lend the money, and that he threatened the victim with “to throw away the dead and to live in the breabb,” can be sufficiently recognized.

4...

arrow