(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.02.04 2015노1492 | 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 2016.02.04 2015노1492

사기

Text

The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding (the fraud committed on January 25, 2013) the victim consistently states that he/she was not a donation to the Defendant, rather than a donation to the Defendant, and that the victim received money from another person at the time and sold it to the third person, the Defendant would be entitled to pay the purchase price as stated in the facts charged.

It is fully recognized that the fact that the damaged person was accused by deceiving the damaged person and by receiving the document.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the fraud on January 25, 2013, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended sentence) is deemed too uneasy and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In the court of the court below, the victim of the court below's judgment will purchase the defendant's lecture.

However, the defendant's statement to the effect that "the defendant argued that he would have known about the amount of his/her strong price because he/she said the price of his/her strong price," and the defendant's letter of demand on November 11, 2013 (Evidence No. 2, No. 7,8 of the Evidence Record) sent by the victim to the defendant is only about the return of the borrowed amount of KRW 6 million and does not mention whether he/she is demoted. The highest notice of the defendant on January 7, 2014 (Evidence No. 2, No. 9, 10 of the Evidence Record No. 2 of the Evidence No. 2 of the Evidence No. 2 of the Evidence No. 2 of the Evidence No. 2 of the Evidence No. 9 and 10 of the Evidence No. 2 of the Evidence No.), however, in light of the overall context, it appears that it appears that it was merely an additional reference to the defendant's demand the repayment of the borrowed amount of KRW 6 million in addition to it.

that it will later be placed with an indication of the audit.

As such, there is a relation between this and the action of the victim's forcibly.

whether it can be seen.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2018.02.07 2017고단4166

-부산지방법원 2017.10.27 2017노2805

-부산고등법원 2016.09.28 2016노292

-창원지방법원 2019.05.23 2018노2945

-수원지방법원 2017.05.25 2017고정108