logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.05.27 2016노88
사기등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to all the evidence of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, even if the defendant sufficiently recognizes the fact by deceiving the duty-free oil as stated in the facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles that found the not guilty of this part of the charges

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (three million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misapprehension of the legal principles on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (1) The Defendant, without any intention to use the aquaculture management line for the purpose of the aquaculture management line as stipulated in the law, used a fish farm management line (4.51 tons) from the beginning to use the fish farm management line for the purpose of the aquaculture management line, with the intention of using the fish farm management line (4.51 tons).

On October 9, 2007, the Defendant: (a) at Simsan-si, Simsan-si, Simsan-si, the head of Simsan-si, the Defendant: (b) did not use or operate a control line on waters other than the fishing ground area designated by the above C, which was designated as the management line of the fish plantation located in the Simsan-si, Simsan-si; (c) did not prepare a port report as if the operation was possible; (d) submitted a tax-free oil supply card to an employee under the name-free shop belonging to the Simsan-si, who is responsible for the delivery of tax-free petroleum; and (e) had the Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives believe that a person responsible for the supply of tax-free petroleum is operating a legitimate fishing; and (e) received 600 liters via tax-free petroleum (381,300, 747,000, 747, 2000, 250, 405, 2014).

(2) The lower court’s judgment is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, ① the Defendant’s phone call or visit at the time of the instant operation.

arrow