logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.16 2019노753
사기등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant is only the nominal owner of the “C”’s business registration certificate used for the instant crime, the head of the O bank, the head of the Tong/C card, and the Handphone, and the person operating the “C” by using it. It is not a household affairs.

Even if the consumers who purchased the sports in the judgment of the court below through the above "C" have purchased the sports in the judgment of the court below with the awareness that they were aware of or could have become a valuable, not a authentic thing, so the crime of fraud cannot be established.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 744,931,130) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant alleged that the judgment of the court below is identical to this part of the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected all of the above arguments on the ground that the defendant did not lend the name related to the operation of the "C" to S, but actually operated the "C" under the title of "decision on the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion", and it is reasonable to view that the victims who purchased the home effects of this case were in the defendant's advertisement that they sold the home effects of the goods more wher than the fixed price, thereby suffering property damage equivalent to the purchase price of the goods.

The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below. ① The defendant submitted some AC dialogue related to the existence of S in the court below (Evidence 1 and 2 submitted by the defendant) but there is no evidence to confirm that the counter-party to the conversation indicated in the above evidence is S in the defendant’s assertion. ② The defendant asserted that S operated the pawnpo in China along with S, the date of birth of S, the address in China, and contact numbers, etc. up to the trial.

arrow