logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2017.05.25 2017노76
업무상횡령등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The Defendant did not borrow KRW 100,000 from F on March 6, 2016 (Article 220 of the 2016 order order 220). B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the premise that the victim F’s investigative agency and the legal statement consistent with this part of the facts charged are reliable. As such, the lower court’s determination that recognized the credibility of the victim F’s statement was

There is no special circumstance to see that maintaining the judgment of the court below on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the court below is considerably unfair.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. A favorable circumstance is that the Defendant acknowledges most of the crimes and reflects his mistake, the amount of damage to each victim is relatively large, and the fact that a considerable number of victims have agreed to or the damage has been recovered.

However, the crime of fraud of this case was committed by the defendant by deceiving money from many victims under the pretext of borrowing money or by deceiving sales proceeds to many unspecified victims at the Internet's trading site of goods and is not good in light of the method, frequency, etc. of the crime. The defendant has been punished several times for the same crime. In particular, even though he was first punished twice during the repeated crime due to fraud, he again committed the crime of this case without being aware of it during the repeated crime period, and even if he was punished twice, he again committed the crime of this case, and it was shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, motive for the crime.

arrow