(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.10.17 2018노3319 | 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) 수원지방법원 2018.10.17 2018노3319

부정수표단속법위반등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Of the facts charged in each of the instant cases, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on each of the following facts: (a) the lower court acquitted each of the instant charges; (b) the violation of the Control of Illegal Check Act; (c) the violation of the Labor Standards Act due to unpaid wages, etc. in 2016 order 6489; and (d) the violation of the attached Table Nos. 1, 5, 10 through 23, 25 through 44, 46; and (d) the part concerning the violation of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits in 2016 order 6489; (b) the part concerning the violation of the Labor Standards Act due to the payment of wages, etc. in the attached Table Nos. 1, 5, 10, 12 through 14, 16 through 21, 23 through 29, 31, 32, 34 through 39, 41 through 46; and (c) the part concerning which the Defendant and the Prosecutor dismissed was dismissed.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the acquittal part of the judgment below.

2. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal can be recognized that the defendant had the ability to repay by deceiving himself/herself and acquired money and goods from the victims, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of each of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

3. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant acquired money or goods from the victim W and X as stated in each of the facts charged in the instant case, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The reasoning of the lower court’s judgment is as follows: (a) in relation to the fraud of the borrowed money to the victim W, the Defendant repaid the borrowed money to October 2015, which was at the time of the said charge’s deception; and (b) in so doing, the Defendant paid the borrowed money within the month of the said charge’s deception.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2018.06.14 2017노1828

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2017.11.22 2016노460

-제주지방법원 2018.11.22 2018노290

-의정부지방법원 2016.06.02 2016노405

-울산지방법원 2017.07.14 2016노2102