(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.10.16 2017노4011 | 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) 광주지방법원 2018.10.16 2017노4011

사기

Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B 1) The Defendant was guilty of fraud related to the cancellation of the execution of the disposition (Article 1 of the facts charged). The Defendant did not deceive the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, nor did he had the intent to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B) The Defendant did not deception the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, and did not intend to commit the crime of defraudation, as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor (Defendant A) committed fraud related to the cancellation of the execution of the disposition, and the Defendant conspired with B to recognize the fact of deceiving the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2) According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant conspired with B to commit the crime of fraud as stated in this part of the facts charged, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant committed the crime of fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion

A. 1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① On August 9, 2012, A, a real operator of I Co., Ltd., issued to the victim a promissory note amounting to KRW 260 million at face value, KRW 30 million on May 31, 2013 on the date of payment, and KRW 10 million on the issuer I Co., Ltd., and in relation thereto, I draw up a fair deed of this case (hereinafter “fair deed”).

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.16 2020노2338

-대전지방법원 2018.04.19 2017노987 (1)

-부산지방법원 2015.09.17 2015노1779

-수원지방법원 2017.07.10 2017노156

-광주지방법원 2017.04.12 2017노22