logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.02.18 2015도18875
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a criminal trial becomes final and conclusive substantially, it shall not be repeatedly punished for the same offense, and where a public prosecution is instituted against the same case as a case on which a final and conclusive judgment has been rendered, the acquittal shall be pronounced by judgment pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do2080 delivered on March 22, 1994, etc.).

(1) A list of crimes listed in the judgment of the court of first instance, in the absence of intention or capacity;

1. On November 25, 2012, 201, the first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of all the charges, including the act of taking money from AV to the Defendant’s national bank account and taking money from KRW 270,000 to the Defendant’s national bank account on November 25, 2012 (hereinafter “the charges in this part”), and rejected the Defendant’s appeal as to the unfair sentencing.

3. The record reveals the following facts: (a) on October 1, 2013, the Defendant was issued a summary order (hereinafter “instant summary order”) by Busan District Court Decision 2013 High Court Decision 15196 (hereinafter “instant summary order”) and around that time, the instant summary order became final and conclusive; and (b) on November 25, 2012, the Defendant written a statement that the Defendant sent a door to the above Internet website around November 25, 2012 that he received KRW 270,00 from AX to the Defendant’s national bank account, and acquired by fraud.

According to the above facts, the facts charged in this part of the facts charged and the facts charged against AX included in the summary order of this case are partly different from the victim's name, and the date, method, and amount of damage, etc. of the crime are consistent. Meanwhile, even upon examining the records, it was deposited into the national bank account in the name of the defendant on November 25, 2012, such as the date of the crime in this part of the facts charged.

arrow