(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.02.22 2017노3625

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 2018.02.22 2017노3625

사기

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the absence of a false statement to the victim D that “the Defendant is running a business between Indonesia and is making investments in the business within six months,” the Defendant was guilty of all the facts charged of this case, and there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the lower court convicted the Defendant of all the facts charged of this case.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances can be acknowledged based on the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts: ① The prosecutor may impose a large amount of money on the victim when the Defendant purchased the network in Indonesia and exported it to China (hereinafter “the instant project”). The investment in the instant project would lead to two times the investment amount within six months.

“Falsely speaking to the purport that the instant crime was committed by specifying the following as the deception details, and subsequently instituting a public prosecution; ② The victim consistently from the investigative agency to the court below’s trial; and consistently, around January 2010, the victim told the Defendant that “in the event of an investment in the instant business, he/she would make a profit twice the investment amount within six months.” From that time to November 4, 201, he/she remitted USD 313,043.18 and KRW 3 million in the amount of six times in total.

The statement made by F, which introduced the Defendant to the victim, corresponds to the victim's statement in lieu of the victim's statement, and ③ the Defendant is entitled to receive two times the amount invested from the investigative agency to the court of first instance.

Although the above facts are denied, it would pay a considerable interest or profit to the victim.

(4) the amount of money invested by the victim and the developments leading up to the fund-raising.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2017.11.30 2017고단3592

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2017.05.12 2017고정86

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2016.03.31 2015고단844

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.29 2016고단8596

-부산지방법원 2016.08.11 2016고단2763