(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.08.18 2017노515

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) 서울남부지방법원 2017.08.18 2017노515

사기

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant A and B did not deceiving the victim. The Defendants did not deceive the victim.

New equipment started from the country;

The phrase "C" is the wrong delivery of the horses by the Defendants to the victim.

Since there was a change in circumstances after receiving money, it was not due to the fact that the Kamera mining business did not run properly, there was no intention to commit fraud.

B) Defendant C: The Defendant delivered the content from B as it is to the victim and arranged the victim A and B to assist the victim, and did not deceiving the victim and did not intend to commit the crime of deception.

2) The part concerning the fraud of the victim I against the victim I (Defendant B) is not true that the victim was accused, and there was no intention to commit the crime of deception.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment for Defendant A, two years and six months of imprisonment for Defendant B, and one year of imprisonment for Defendant C) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Judgment of the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the part concerning the fraud of the victim H (the Defendants) based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the injured party, i.e., taking over the company bonds rather than directly invested in the equipment. However, the defendants purchased new equipment with the victim’s money and sent it to the company where the injured party handled the car. On arrival of the equipment at the home, it was said that the company was able to make an investment in the industrial bank at the Industrial Bank and the company’s commercial value. Thus, the defendants acquired the company bonds. Nevertheless, the defendants purchased new equipment to the victim and

The poor financial situation of the company is not properly notified, and the defendant A and B are erroneous for the defendant C.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.14 2015노2529

-부산지방법원 2019.08.29 2019노922

-창원지방법원 2019.02.20 2018노1792

-부산고등법원 2017.04.26 2016노730

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.23 2018노281