(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.05.27 2015노3091 | 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) 대전지방법원 2016.05.27 2015노3091

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of the facts and the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (guilty part) did not borrow money from the damaged person.

2) The lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In fact, the Defendant, as well as the written reply, submitted to the competent court a certificate of confirmation prepared by F, to the effect that the victim was not a loan to the Defendant in Daejeon District Court Hongsung Branch 2013 Gao 6869, the Defendant was not a loan to the Defendant. Therefore, the crime of fraud is established.

2) The lower court’s improper sentencing is too unfortunate and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the Defendant and the defense counsel argued at the court below that this part of the appeal was the same as the grounds for appeal, and the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that: (a) although the Defendant acknowledged the fact that he received the money recorded in the facts charged to his father’s account; (b) he did not make a consistent statement on the reason that he received the money; (c) he did not make a statement on the reason that he received the money; and (d) he did not make a statement on the reason that he borrowed the money from his husband; (d) the victim made a consistent and concrete statement from the investigative agency about the fact that the borrowed money was consistent with the victim’s statement; (d) the Defendant’s statement also corresponds to the victim’s statement; and (e) the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the damaged person as the relocation cost of the facility; and (e) the separate KRW 10 million which can be seen as the relocation cost of the facility; and (e) the Defendant’s money deposited into the above D account.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below closely, the above judgment of the court below is just.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.09.21 2017노9442

-울산지방법원 2017.11.17 2017노1107

-서울고등법원 2018.11.01 2018노1198

-춘천지방법원 2017.02.09 2016노668

-의정부지방법원 2017.10.17 2017노2167