(영문) 수원지방법원 2012.12.05 2012노4118 | 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) 수원지방법원 2012.12.05 2012노4118

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts also with the victim, the Defendant believed that the new construction of the D Apartment-gun D Apartment (hereinafter “instant construction”) project was normally carried out and was able to operate the brine at the construction site at the same time. The victim had already been experienced in operating the brine, who was sufficiently anticipated that the above project will be delayed, such as having the B enter the provisions on damages for delay in the contract related to the operation of the brine in the contract with B, and the victim would not have entered into the contract with B after hearing the B’s explanation and not have entered into the contract with the Defendant with the belief that he had no experience in operating the brine.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant, the following facts are acknowledged according to the records.

1) The lower court sent a copy of the indictment and a writ of summons of the first trial date to the Defendant’s residence, which is the Defendant’s residence as stated in the indictment, “No. 333, 701, Yongsan-gu J. 33, J. 701,” but it was impossible to serve the Defendant’s cell phone (K), and the Defendant attempted to contact with the Defendant on the 173 page of the public trial record but became unable to communicate with the Defendant, and the Defendant was absent on the 19th trial date ( December 8, 2009). On the other hand, the Defendant was absent on the 22th trial date ( December 22, 2009) although he was not notified of the second trial date, according to the written statement in the grounds of appeal submitted by the defense counsel of the Defendant at the trial at the second trial date ( December 22, 2009).

On January 14, 2010, the following date is notified.

유사 판례

-대법원 2018. 11. 29. 선고 2018도13377 판결

-서울북부지방법원 2014.10.30 2014노1111

-대법원 2019.5.10. 선고 2018도18934 판결

-청주지방법원 2013.01.31 2012노623

-의정부지방법원 2014.03.26 2013노1268