(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.01.12 2017노2767

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 2018.01.12 2017노2767

사기등

Text

Of the judgment of the court below, the part of the 2017 Highest 458 case is reversed.

The crime of the 2017 Highest 458 case is committed against the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the fraud against the public prosecutor, the defendant did not make efforts to promptly return the vehicle to AJ even though he/she was paid the personal debt to the victim, and even after one month from AJ, he/she did not return the vehicle to the victim, and the defendant sent the vehicle to AI, the owner of the vehicle, rather than delivering the vehicle to the victim. When sending the vehicle to the victim, the defendant is in custody of the victim from the beginning, and when sending 5.4 million won, the victim would have been informed of the fact that he/she would have paid the vehicle to the AJ and delivered the vehicle to the victim, the victim would have not remitted 5.4 million won to the defendant. In light of the fact that the victim had the intent to commit the crime of defraudation

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the charges on the premise that the defendant is not guilty of fraud, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (as indicated in its holding, 3726, 2015estest 3739, 2015estest 3739, 2016estest 484, 2017est 372: Imprisonment with prison labor; 1 year and 6 months; 2017estest 458: imprisonment with prison labor; 2017estest 2052: imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On May 24, 2016, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant called the victim AG via AF on May 24, 2016, and called the victim AG to have the attorney appointed rapidly in the pending trial; and (b) the Defendant has the vehicle cost of KRW 500,000 and the vehicle run in Busan. As the vehicle cost of KRW 500,000 for the vehicle and the vehicle are in Busan, the Defendant would send the vehicle back to the two-luminous church (Seoul Eunpyeong-gu Greendong location).

“A false statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, even if the defendant is paid the vehicle price from the injured party, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to purchase the vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant deceivings the victim and belongs to it.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2018.12.12 2017고단1945

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.09.21 2015고단3726

-서울남부지방법원 2017.07.06 2016고단4374

-전주지방법원 2018.09.14 2018노991

-서울동부지방법원 2015.05.08 2014고정1963