(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.30 2014노98

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.30 2014노98

사기

Text

Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of second court shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below of first instance (defendants) 1) Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment of one year and six months by the court below to Defendant A, which was sentenced to imprisonment of one year and six months, so unfair. 2) Defendant B was paid a balance of KRW 70 million to be deposited for 4 days, not for 3.5 billion, but for 3.5 billion, and the victim did not comply with the promise to set up a first priority mortgage. Defendant B did not obtain any benefit of KRW 70 million while handling the practical work under Defendant A, and there was no intention to obtain fraud. 2) The sentence of imprisonment of August 1 sentenced to Defendant B by the court of first instance is too unfair.

B. The 4-month punishment sentenced by the second court below to Defendant A is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A’s ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by Defendant A’s ex officio, Defendant A filed an appeal against the judgment below and decided to concurrently examine the above appeal cases. Each of the crimes of the court below first and second is in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and shall be sentenced to one punishment within the scope of the term of punishment aggravated for concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. As such, the part against Defendant A among the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance cannot be maintained.

3. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court, the victim Q Q did not have to obtain a certificate of balance deposited for 4 days, but rather, to obtain a loan of 3.5 billion won to the Defendants in order to obtain a real loan.

참조조문

-형법 제38조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.29 2019노3627

-서울고등법원 2014.04.10 2013노2990

-서울고등법원 2013.12.19 2013노3036

-광주지방법원 2015.01.29 2014노1296

-수원지방법원 2015.01.16 2014노3428