logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2013.04.04 2012노1470
사기
Text

The judgment below

Of the defendants B, the part of the defendant is reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that this judgment.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

A (the imprisonment with labor for one year) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

Defendant

A prosecutor who was not guilty of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing) brought a prosecution against Defendant B on the same content as “the facts charged prior to the amendment,” and applied for a modification of the indictment to the same content as the facts charged in this case at the court below. The court below permitted the modification of the indictment. Although the facts charged prior to the modification and the facts charged in this case are not identical with basic facts, the court below allowed the modification of the indictment to be lawful and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the basic identity of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion

[The facts charged before the revision] The Defendants discovered those who need electricity and small-amount loans on the Internet site, and accessed the victims who want to get the loan with the right to sell apartment units and then allowed them to succeed to the right to sell apartment units in the name of the victims, and solicited them to acquire them by means of receiving intermediate payments paid by the sellers of the right to sell apartment units on behalf of the victims.

On February 28, 2012, Defendant A told the victim E who wants to obtain a loan in the vicinity of the Changdong Station in Bupyeongcheon-si, and introduced the victim to Defendant B, and the defendant B issued a false certificate of employment to the victim, and the defendant B also stated that he acted as if he was in the company and succeeded to the apartment sale right in accordance with the certificate of employment.

However, the Defendants pay to the seller the purchase of apartment purchase right by the victim.

arrow