(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.04.08 2014노3751 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전지방법원 2015.04.08 2014노3751

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. Fact-finding 1) As to the fraud of September 13, 2014 among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not have any intent to deceive the victim and take the victim through deception. 2) As to the obstruction of business among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s entertainment tavern business by avoiding disturbance, such as taking a bath for two hours.

3) As to the insult of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not insult the victim who is a police officer. 4) As to the obstruction of performance of official duties among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not interfere with the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty on each of the above facts charged is erroneous in mistake of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the first instance court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence regarding the fraud of September 13, 2014 regarding determination of mistake of facts, the Defendant can be recognized by deceiving the victim without any intention or ability to pay the drinking value, etc. and receiving the victim’s speech and speech equivalent to KRW 400,000 from the victim. Thus, the Defendant’s allegation of mistake of facts is rejected.

① Although the Defendant had a credit card at the time of being provided with alcohol, salves, etc., all of them could not be used for an excessive limit, and it seems that the Defendant did not have cash as much as having paid the alcohol value.

(2) The defendant has a person attend a entertainment loan to drink alcohol, and has the person drink alcohol for a total of four hours by extending one hour.

When the defendant extended time, the victim D was found to request the payment of the drinking value, and the defendant against this.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2020.03.27 2020노59

-부산지방법원 2014.09.18 2014고정2668

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.02.15 2013노90

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2015.10.15 2015노461

-부산지방법원 2013.11.15 2013노2897