logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.07.24 2013노2062
사기등
Text

The judgment below

The part of the judgment in fraud is reversed.

A fine of KRW 3,00,000 shall be imposed on the defendant's fraud in its judgment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (the fraud around November 15, 2010) (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) by the Defendant: (a) around November 15, 2010, the victim H is the FM5 car (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of having committed an unlawful act of misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant did not intend to obtain money from the victim, on the sole ground that all necessary documents, such as seal impressions necessary for the transfer of the name, were the victim at the time of sale, and even if the victim did not intend to obtain money from the victim. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment and a fine of five million won, a suspended sentence of two years, a probation, and a community service order 200 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On November 15, 2010, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: “The Defendant sold the instant vehicle to H while selling the instant vehicle to H on November 15, 2010, and the Defendant had already sold the instant vehicle to D, so the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to sell the said vehicle, but the Defendant did not have any intent or capacity to sell the said vehicle to H, and the Defendant received 6,600,000 won from the victim as the purchase price at around that time, and acquired 6,60,000 won from the victim as the purchase price for the instant vehicle.” The lower court determined that the lower court: (a) comprehensively based on its adopted evidence, the Defendant sold the instant vehicle to H while selling the instant vehicle to H, and received the purchase price from H; (b) the Defendant did not approve the ownership transfer registration of the instant vehicle due to transfer of ownership by allowing H to deliver necessary documents for the instant vehicle to H after selling the instant vehicle to H.

arrow