logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.04.09 2014노4033
관세법위반등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On the date when U.S., the victim of mistake of facts (Fraud) issued a 50 million won check, which is the same amount as the damaged source, and inasmuch as T has received the above check through U’s money, the source of the fund delivered to the defendant is clearly U.S. and the same amount has been given thereafter, it is recognized that there is a fact that the defendant has been given the same amount. Thus, even though it can be sufficiently recognized that the court below acquitted the defendant of the above facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that T was not guilty of the above facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and twenty-six thousand won per each person from the Defendant and B, and twenty-five,170,000 won from the Defendant, respectively, shall be additionally collected) is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On July 24, 2004, Defendant A made a false statement to the effect that “If you invest KRW 50 million in the land site in Gyeyang-si, the land purchase deposit will be used and the balance will be settled with a bank loan.” However, Defendant A did not specifically proceed with the purchase of the above forest land and the alteration of the form and quality thereof, but did not have the intent or ability to use the said forest purchase deposit even if the victim received money from the victim. Nevertheless, Defendant A was issued a cashier’s checks issued by the victim on August 24, 2004 as land purchase deposit under the name of 50 million won as land purchase deposit under the name of the victim via T, the lower court determined that the lower court, in light of the method consistent with the instant sales contract and the statement made by T&T and the real estate transaction contract, and the real estate transaction contract of this case, is not consistent.

arrow