(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.01.12 2017노4714 | 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) 대구지방법원 2018.01.12 2017노4714

사기

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was aware that C was involved in the so-called “phishing” crime and introduced D to C, and there was no intention to gather or participate in the instant “phishing” crime.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal on this part. Accordingly, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion and its determination in detail from No. 3, No. 11 to No. 6, and then found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

In a thorough examination of the evidence presented by the court below in light of the records of this case, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and direct principle as to the determination of sentencing, where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). On the following grounds: (a) together with regard to the Defendant and the prosecutor’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant did not have any history of punishment except twice a fine due to drinking driving; and (b) the Defendant’s recovery of some damage caused by the instant crime, which is favorable to the Defendant; and (c) in light of the fact that the method of the so-called “phishing crime” is more pushed and the damage is growing, the participants in the instant crime.

참조판례

-대법원 2015. 7. 23. 선고 2015도3260 전원합의체 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2017.03.24 2017노317

-대구지방법원 2016.03.18 2016노8

-대구지방법원 2017.03.17 2017노157

-대구지방법원 2017.09.15 2017노2348

-대구지방법원 2017.12.22 2017노4289