(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.14 2020노2170

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.14 2020노2170

사기등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) 2018 order 7084 case, the Defendant was merely a continuous and late payment of maliciouss unexpected at the time of borrowing the instant money from the victim G (hereinafter “victim”) and there was a criminal intent to acquire the instant money from the time of borrowing.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although this part of the facts charged is not possible.

B) As to the 2018 Highest 7397 case, even though the contract for the discount of electronic bills entered into by the Defendant and the damaged company (hereinafter “victim”) includes a provision on the division of the discount amount between the Defendant and the damaged company, the contract cannot be deemed as a contract to delegate the business of the discount of electronic bills to the Defendant, and the Defendant takes over the electronic bills in the name of the victimized company B (hereinafter “B”) whose representative director is the Defendant, and gives a discount to a third party. As long as the electronic bills have been issued normally on the part of the Defendant, as long as the electronic bills were issued on the part of the Defendant, the Defendant is merely liable to return the transferred electronic bills to the victimized company. As such, the return of the electronic bills does not constitute the victimized company’s business affairs or the Defendant is in the position of the victimized company’s business affairs manager.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "other person's business" in the crime of breach of trust.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

(a) The defendant is guilty of facts.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원서산지원 2016.10.07 2016가단5308

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.27 2017가단105348

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.10 2015가단210109

-광주지방법원 2015.10.13 2015가단33361

-의정부지방법원 2018.10.25 2017나8662