logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.07.12 2012노3900
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. On June 2009, Defendant B purchased an accident insurance policy and asked Defendant A to pay the insurance premium by proxy. On July 3, 2009, Defendant B purchased the insurance prior to the occurrence of the insurance accident by requesting the payment of the re-paid insurance premium and the purchase of the insurance policy. However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty of the facts charged by finding that the above circumstances were false after the occurrence of the insurance accident, and that the punishment (six months of imprisonment of each of the Defendants) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's argument of mistake of facts, the following circumstances are as shown in the judgment of the court below, i.e., (i) if the defendant A received an application for insurance premium payment request from the defendant B on June 2009 by the police officer on behalf of the defendant B and received the signature in the application, he shall immediately pay the insurance premium as an insurance solicitor and receive the application for insurance premium payment in lieu of the insurance premium, and there is no reason that the insurance solicitor act in favor of his business performance until July 3, 2009, and (ii) according to each insurance subscription confirmation column, the date and place of the defendant A interviewed the defendant B on July 3, 2009 is indicated as the date and place of the contract and the insured's signature, delivered the insurance contract directly with the signature of the contractor and the insured on his own, and explained the insurance contract to the insurer at the same time and place. The defendants also acknowledged the fact that the insurance contract was not delivered to the insurer, the time and place of the insurance contract and the insurer's explanation.

arrow