logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.05.08 2013노279
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant is merely receiving a return of money from the victim C in several times, and does not receive money from the victim C in return for allowing the victim C to obtain Korean nationality from the victim or for getting the victim detained in the Immigration Office to receive money from the victim's private village E.

The victims of the instant case gather the Defendant together with some victims of other fraudulent cases against which the judgment had become final and conclusive.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if the Defendant’s conviction is recognized, the lower court’s imprisonment (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant ex officio, the victim's petition, the police's statement of the victim, the victim's statement among the police's interrogation protocol of the defendant, and the admissibility of the victim's statement among the prosecutor's interrogation protocol

A protocol containing a statement made by a person other than the defendant may be admitted as evidence when it is proved to be genuine by the statement made by the person making the original statement at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial (Article 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In this case, there is no evidence that the defendant has consented to the use of the above protocol and each part of the victim's statement as evidence, and the victim did not admit the authenticity of each protocol and each part of the victim's statement made in

However, there is room for exceptionally allowing the admissibility of evidence in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, so the court has not served a summons of a witness on a person who needs to make a statement over several times and so the request for detection of the location was made but the location was unknown or the statement was needed.

arrow