(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.10.24 2017노1620 | 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) 전주지방법원 2018.10.24 2017노1620

사기

Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A misunderstanding the fact that Defendant A 1 did not deceiving the victim F by making the same remarks as the entries in the instant facts charged, and there is no fact that Defendant B conspired with, or borrowed money directly from, the victim as stated in the instant facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court against Defendant A (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order of 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (for the Defendants, six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service order) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A asserted that Defendant A had the same reasons as the above grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected all Defendant A’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) in light of the circumstances as indicated in the reasoning of the lower judgment, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court in the part of “judgment on Defendant A and his defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment of the lower court, the Defendants conspired the victim as indicated in the instant facts charged, thereby deceiving the victim

Examining the following circumstances in light of the circumstances indicated in the judgment of the court below, which can be additionally recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the fact that Defendant A conspired with Defendant B, as stated in the facts charged in this case, to deceive the victim and to defraud the money from the victim.

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

1) In the case of the victim, both the Defendants borrowed money to themselves and borrowed the amount stated in each loan certificate to the Defendants.

Defendant

The loan certificate written A is not written in the sense of guaranteeing the defendant B's obligation.

The statement was made as ‘the background of the lending to the Defendants.'

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.08.23 2018노55

-광주고등법원 2016.06.02 2016노66

-광주지방법원 2018.04.19 2016노185

-대전지방법원 2017.08.24 2017노332

-서울서부지방법원 2018.10.18 2018노616