(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.11.22 2013노2666

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 2013.11.22 2013노2666

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Even though there was no intention to commit a crime of fraud as follows, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby convicteding the Defendant.

1) The Defendant is the Victim D Co., Ltd. (the representative F, hereinafter “victim”).

(1) KRW 100 million received from the Defendant, Inc. (the representative M; hereinafter referred to as “N”)

(2) The Defendant entered into an advisory service contract with N and G Limited Corporation (hereinafter “G”) on June 22, 2009, with a view to seeking advice on the establishment of the said Joint Venture Company, and the victimized Company agreed to pay N to the Defendant once and until August 31, 2009. However, the Defendant’s failure to establish the said Joint Venture Company was not due to the Defendant’s failure to pay N and N to pay for the internal funds of the victimized Company. (2) The Defendant entered into an advisory service contract with N and the Joint Venture Company (hereinafter “A”) on June 22, 2009.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. On June 13, 2013, the Defendant appealed with imprisonment for a crime of fraud in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013No737 Decided June 13, 2013; however, the same year after the judgment of the lower court was rendered.

8. 12.12. The judgment of the court below became final and conclusive by dismissal of appeal, and the crime of fraud of this case is in the relationship between the above fraud for which the judgment becomes final and conclusive and the concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and determines punishment after considering equity with the concurrent judgment pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment. Thus,

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still included in the scope of the trial of the trial.

참조조문

-형법 제39조 제1항

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.06.17 2014가합11027

-부산지방법원 2016.06.29 2016고단2344

-서울동부지방법원 2018.02.01 2015가단126450

-부산지방법원 2017.06.09 2017고단623

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.02.15 2012노3988